•M0S& 


^  ttae  MktoloQitHi  g 


*H 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


'%, 


& 


Library  of  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge.      Presented. 

BV  813  .K72 

Krauth,  Charles  Porterfield, 
1823-1883. 

Infant  baptism  and  infant 

salvation  in  the 

Number L...Q.p.y...&L 


INFANT  BAPTISM 


AND 


INFANT  SALVATION 


IN    THE 


CALVINISTIC  SYSTEM. 


A  REVIEW  OF  DR.  HODGE'S  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY. 


BY 


C.   P.   KRAUTH,   D.D 


PHILADELPHIA  : 
LUTHERAN  BOOK  STORE,  117  N.  SIXTH  STREET, 

1874. 


NOTE. 

This  Review   appears   in  this  Volume  for  the  first  time  in   a 

complete  shape. 


A  REVIEW 


OP 


DR.  HODGE'S  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY 


"WITH   SPECIAL   REFEKENCE  TO   THE   QUESTION   OF   INFANT   BAPTISM 
AND     INFANT   SALVATION,    IN  THE   CALVINISTIC  SYSTEM.* 


§1.    OUTLINE  AND  GENERAL  ESTIMATE  OF  DR.  HODGE'S  SYSTEMA- 
TIC THEOLOGY. 

The  work  opens  with  an  Introduction,  which  treats  of 
Method;  Theology;  Rationalism;  Mysticism;  the  Rule  of 
Faith  in  the  Roman  Catholic  and  Protestant  view. 

The  First  Part  embraces  Theology  proper;  under  which  are 
treated  :  Origin  of  the  idea  of  God ;  Theism  ;  Antitheistic 
Theories  ;  Knowledge  of  God ;  His  Nature  and  Attributes  ; 
the  Trinity  ;  Divinity  of  Christ ;  the  Holy  Spirit ;  the  Decree 
of  God  ;  Creation  ;  Providence  ;  Miracles  ;  Angels. 

The  Second  Part  is  occupied  with  Anthropology  :  Man,  his 
Origin  and  Nature  ;  Origin  of  the  Soul ;  Unity  of  the  Human 

*  Systematic  Theology.  By  Charles  Hodge,  D.  D.,  Professor  in  the  Theological 
Seminary,  Princeton,  New  Jersey.  New  York  :  Scribner,  Armstrong  i  Co.  8vo, 
Vol.  I.,  1S72,  xiii.,  648.  Vol.  II.,  xi.,  732.  Vol.  III.,  1873,  viii.,  880.  Vol.  IV. 
Index. 


4  Review  of  Dr.  Hodge's  Systematic  Theology. 

Race ;  Original  State  of  Man ;  Covenant  of  Works ;  the 
Fall ;  Sin  ;  Free  Agency. 

The  Third  Part  presents  Soteriology :  the  Plan  of  Salva- 
tion ;  Covenant  of  Grace  ;  the  Person  of  Christ ;  His  Media- 
torial Work;  Prophetic  and  Priestly  Offices;  Satisfaction-; 
for  Whom  did  Christ  Die  ?  Theories  of  the  Atonement ; 
Christ's  Intercession;  Kingly  Office;  Humiliation;  Exalta- 
tion; Vocation;  Regeneration;  Faith;  Justification;  Sanctifi- 
cation  ;  the  Law,  with  a  Particular  Commentary  on  each  Com- 
mandment; the  Means  of  Grace;  the  Word  of  God;  the 
Sacraments  ;  Baptism  ;  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  Prayer. 

The  Fourth  Part  is  Eschatology  :  The  State  of  the  Soul 
after  Death;  Resurrection;  Second  Advent;  Concomitants 
of  the  Second  Advent. 

Of  the  general  fullness  and  logical  order  of  this  arrangement 
there  can  be  no  question.  The  discussion  of  the  Divinity  of 
Christ  as  distinct  from  the  Trinity  might  perhaps  better  have 
been  given  under  Soteriology,  so  as  not  to  separate  the 
"Divinity  of  Christ"  from  the  "Person  of  Christ."  The 
most  important  defect  in  the  plan  is  that  it  does  not  embrace 
a  distinct  and  full  treatment  of  the  doctrine  concerning  the 
Church.  The  omission  has  been  made  for  some  reason  which 
satisfies  Dr.  Hodge.  We  hope  that  it  means  that  he  proposes 
to  give  to  the  Church  a  monograph  on  this  subject,  one  of  the 
most  vitally  important  and  interesting  doctrines  at  all  times, 
but  especially  in  our  own  day.  We  know  of  no  man  more 
competent  than  Dr.  Hodge  to  rebuke,  with  the  effectual 
weapons  of  fact  and  logic,  the  insane  pretences  of  the  rampant 
pseudo  ecclesiasticism  of  our  time,  and  the  yet  insaner  radi- 
calism, which  frightens  many  into  the  ecclesiasticism. 

The  first  thing  which  strikes  us  in  reading  Dr.  Hodge's 
book  is  the  style.     Whether  we  shall  accept  or  reject  what  he 


General  Estimate  of  Dr.  Hodge's  Systematic  Theology.     5 

maintains  may  sometimes  involve  a  question,  or  a  pause  ;  but 
his  simple,  luminous  mode  of  statement  rarely  leaves  us  in 
any  embarrassment  as  to  what  it  is  on  which  we  are  to  decide. 
The  sentences  are  never  involved.  The  language  is  a  model 
of  clearness.  There  is  a  plain  solid  sense,  the  result  of  a 
sound  judgment  thoroughly  matured,  which  is  delightful 
beyond  expression  in  this  day  and  land  of  fine  writing.  This, 
of  course,  will  expose  Dr.  Hodge  to  the  charge  of  shallow- 
ness, from  those  who  think  that  nothing  is  deep  but  what  is 
unintelligible,  and  that  the  art  of  good  writing  is  the  art  of 
putting  words  to  things  in  the  proportion  of  Falstaff's  sack  to 
Falstaff's  bread,  and  that  the  measure  of  words  is  like  the 
measure  of  Falstaff  in  the  girth. 

Another  great  feature  of  Dr.  Hodge's  book  is,  its  value   to 
our  common  Christianity — nay,  in  a  wide  sense,  to   religion  on 
that  broader  definition  in  which  the  believing  Jew  has  a  com- 
mon interest  with  the  Christian.    To  the  gratitude  of  Jew  and 
Christian,  Dr.    Hodge  is   entitled  by  the   able  vindication   of 
Revelation  against  the  assaults  which  would  bring  the  faith  of 
Jew  and  Christian  alike  to  the  dust.     To  Roman  Catholic  and 
Protestant,  Dr.  Hodge  comes  with  a  defense   of  the   common 
creeds   of  Christendom  ;  to  Calvinist  and    Lutheran,  with   the 
able  argument  on  the  distinctive  elements  of  Protestantism  and 
the  precious  truths  reasserted  by  the  original  Churches  of  the 
Reformation.     Even  in  its   relative   isolation  as   distinctively 
Calvinistic,  Dr.  Hodge's  book  is  invaluable.     It  is  the   gauge 
of  the  type   of    Calvinism   which   is   considered   by  its   ablest 
living   representatives  as  tenable  ;  a   Calvinism   so  gentle   in 
its  spirit  toward  other  forms   of  evangelical   Christianity,  and 
so  full  of  the  disposition  to  mitigate  its  own  harder  points,  as 
to  furnish  irenical  elements  of  the  most  hopeful  kind. 

The  general   mildness,  fairness,  and   clearness  of  the  book 


6  Review  of  Dr.  Hodges  Systematie  Theology. 

are  beyond  dispute.  It  treats  Polemics  in  the  spirit  of  Irenics, 
for  the  most  part,  but  with  here  and  there  a  delightful  little 
dash  of  merited  sarcasm,  a  suspicion  of  irony,  a  playful  con- 
tempt for  small  presumption,  and  a  quiet  smile  at  the  absurd, 
which  humanize  the  argument,  and,  with  those  touches  which 
make  the  whole  world  kin,  bring  the  author  nearer  to  the 
reader.  Nor  are  there  wanting  earnest  and  eloquent  passages, 
which  deal  with  sin  in  a  manner  in  keeping  with  its  exceeding 
sinfulness,  and  with  conscious  perversions  after  their  evil 
deserts.  There  is  no  amiable  inanity  in  the  book.  It  is  not 
done  in  water-colors,  as  some  people  would  think  it  must  be, 
because  it  is  not  executed  with  a  red-hot  poker  on  an  oak- 
board.  Yet  its  prevailing  character  is  mild,  quiet,  firm,  judi- 
cial. If  it  is  often  pleading,  it  is  still  more  frequently  the 
decision  of  a  judge,  who  sums  up  evidence,  interprets  the  law, 
and  pronounces  the  sentence. 

The  evidences  of  enormous,  yet  reflective,  reading  every- 
where present  themselves,  reading  of  the  most  varied  kind, 
among  the  best  books  and  the  worst  books.  There  is  a  gather- 
ing of  honey  for  stores,  and  of  poisons  for  the  study  of  anti- 
dotes. The  range  stretches  over  the  ages,  takes  in  largely  the 
German  theology,  and  reaches  apparently  almost  to  the  days 
in  which  the  volumes  have  come  from  the  press.  The  result 
of  this  anxiety  to  bring  things  down  to  the  hour  has  neces- 
sarily been  that  some  of  the  latest  reading  has  been  hasty  and 
has  involved  Dr.  Hodge  in  mistakes.  But  the  Doctor's  greatest 
weakness,  in  this  immensity  of  reading,  is  where  it  might  least 
have  been  suspected — it  is  in  Calvinistic  theology.  He  seems 
to  have  neglected  a  part  of  the  Calvinistic  theologians  of  no 
inconsiderable  number  and  bulk.  On  his  own  confession,  so 
far  as  his  memory  can  recall,  he  has  failed  to  have  seen  a  single 
one  of  a  very  large  and  influential   portion  of  those  divines, 


General  Estimate  of  Dr.  Hodge's  Systematic  Theology.      7 

so  large  in  fact  that  for  some  two  centuries  it  is  hard  to  find 
one  who  does  not  belong  to  it.  But  we  account  for  this  on 
the  principles  of  a  latent  elective  affinity.  Like  seeks  only 
its  like  and  holds  it.  There  rise  up  in  history  the  grim  anil 
grisly  features  of  those  old  divines  who  liked  election  but  who 
loved  reprobation  ;  who  conceived  of  the  human  race  as 
created  chiefly  as  fuel  for  Tophet, — divines  who  would  have 
thought  nothing  of  the  perdition  of  a  universe  or  two,  and,  if 
necessary,  of  throwing  themselves  in,  if  their  logic  proved 
that  it  was  all  for  God's  greater  glory — those  inexorable  Jonahs 
on  whom  a  wilderness  of  gourds  would  have  been  lost  in  the 
attempt  to  reconcile  them  to  the  sparing  of  Nineveh.  If  Dr. 
Hodge  long  ago  encountered  these  divines,  he  quietly  turned 
away  into  his  own  brighter  path,  with  other  visions  of  the 
divine  glory.  He  did  not  plunge  into  the  Sahara,  in  the 
possibility  of  finding  an  oasis.  Penetrated,  as  all  his  works 
show,  with  the  completest  recognition  which  is  possible  to  Cal- 
vinism, that  God  is  love,  Calvinism  itself  is  hardly  in  sharper 
contrast  with  Lutheranism  than,  within  Calvinism,  Dr.  Hodge 
himself  is  with  Gomarus  and  his  pitiless  school.  The  only 
apology  which  can  be  made  for  that  school  is  that  which  they 
constantly  make  for  themselves — that  the  logic  of  the  system 
is  with  them,  and  that  they  are  with  the  logic  of  the  system. 
They  did  not  create  the  horrors,  they  only  told  of  them. 

The  general  tone  of  the  book  is  profoundly  devout.  Though 
Dr.  Hodge  has  moved  largely  and  freely  in  the  living  world, 
his  most  marked  affinities  are  yet  with  the  old.  He  saith 
"  the  old  is  better."  He  has  not  put  enough  of  the  new  wine 
into  the  old  bottles  to  rend  them — except  perhaps  in  a  spot  or 
two.  In  spite  of  recent  reading,  and  of  the  space  devoted  to 
the  callow  heresies  of  the  hour,  the  conception  and  organism 
of  the  book  is  prevailingly  scholastic,  of  the   old  Protestant 


8  Revieiv  of  Dr.  Hodge  s  Systematic   Theology. 

type.  It  is  old-fashioned  theology  in  the  main  ;  and,  like  the 
best  old-fashioned  theology,  it  has  the  heart  of  living  piety 
beating  through  it.  It  is  not  satisfied  with  teaching  about 
theology:  it  teaches  theology,  it  is  theology — a  true  " theologia 
egenitorum.'"  Its  solid  judgment  and  learning  will  mark  it 
to  scholars  as  one  of  the  classics  of  Calvinistic  Dogmatics,  the 
ablest  work  in  its  specific  department  in  English  literature. 
But  ft  is  more  than  this,  better  than  this.  The  graces  of 
Christian  life  are  not  repressed  in  it,  as  they  have  often  been 
in  the  arid  formulating  of  systems.  Moliere's  Mock  Doctor 
claimed  no  more  than  that  the  medical  profession  had  changed 
the  place  of  the  heart  from  the  left  side  to  the  right ; 
some  of  the  doctors  in  theology  have  left  the  heart  out  alto- 
gether. But  in  Dr.  Hodge's  Body  of  Divinity  there  is  a  heart 
whose  beat  is  that  of  the  fullest  health — and  you  can  touch 
the  system  nowhere  without  feeling  a  pulse.  It  is  a  book  for 
the  affections.  No  man  could  obtrude  himself  less  in  his  books 
than  Dr.  Hodge  does ;  yet  all  the  more  for  this  very  reason 
do  we  see  the  man  himself  in   his  books.     His   life  has   been 

shaped  upon  the  advice  of  old  Sir  John  Davies : 

1         l  I 

"  Study  the  best  and  highest  things  that  are  ; 
But  of  thyself,  an  humble  thought  retain." 

Dr.  Hodge's  system  furnishes  a  general  landmark  for 
Christian  thinking  in  one  of  its  most  influential  shapes  ;  it 
also  furnishes  a  revelation  of  the  spirit  of  Christian  science, 
a  picture  of  the  Christian  scholar,  a  miniature  of  the  Chris- 
tian life.  Dr.  Hodge  constitutes  in  himself  a  distinct  evi- 
dence of  Christianity,  and  alike  in  what  he  writes  and  what 
he  is,  vindicates  the  supremacy  of  Protestant  culture. 

§2.    INFANTS,  INFANT  BAPTISM,  AND  INFANT  SALVATION  IN  THE 

CALVINISTIC  SYSTEM. 

It  is  a  marked  feature  in  Dr.  Hodge's  book  that  it  does  un- 


The  Westminster  Confession  and  Elect  Infants.  9 

usual  justice  to  the  relative  importance  of  Lutheran  theology. 
There  are  but  two  developed  systems  in  the  world  that  claim 
with  any  show  of  probability  to  be  purely  Biblical.  These 
systems  are  the  Lutheran  and  the  Calvinistic.  They  possess 
a  common  basis  in  their  recognition  of  the  same  rule  of  faith  ; 
their  profession  of  the  Old  Catholic  faith  as  set  forth  in  the 
three  General  Creeds  ;  in  their  acknowledgment  of  the  doc- 
trine of  justification  by  faith  and  of  its  great  associated  doc- 
trines; and  they  have  vast  interests,  great  stakes,  mighty 
bonds  of  sympathy  in  common.  No  two  bodies  of  Christians 
have  more  reason  for  thoroughly  understanding  each  other 
than  Calvinists  and  Lutherans  have,  and  no  two  parts  of 
Christendom  are  closer  together  in  some  vital  respects  than 
consistent  Calvinism  and  consistent  Lutheranism.  It  is  well 
worth  their  while  to  compare  views. 

But  Dr.  Hodge  is  not  only  full  in  his  notices  of  Lutheran 
theology — he  is  also  fair.  Mistakes  he  has  made,  and  very 
important  ones  ;  but  designed  misrepresentations  he  has  never 
made.  Next  to  having  Dr.  Hodge  on  one's  side  is  the  plea- 
sure of  having  him  as  an  antagonist;  for  where  conscientious 
men  must  discuss  a  subject,  who  can  express  the  comfort  of 
honorable,  magnanimous  dealing  on  both  sides — the  feeling 
that  in  battling  with  each  other  they  are  also  battling  for  each 
other,  in  that  grand  warfare  whose  final  issue  will  be  what 
all  good  men  desire,  the  establishment  of  truth  ? 

§   3.    THE    WESTMINSTER    CONFESSION    AND   ELECT  INFANTS. 

On  various  points  Dr.  Hodge  argues  against  the  Lutheran 
doctrine,  or  what  he  believes  to  be  such.     One  of  these  points 

Baptism.  On  the  "  necessity  ':  of  Baptism,  Dr.  Hodge 
thinks  the  Lutheran  divines  have  "softened  down."  On  this 
point  he  is  mistaken.    Our  divines,  beginning  with  Luther  and 


10  Review  of  Dr.  Hodge  s  Systematic  Theology. 

Melanchthon,  have  held,  and  hold  to  this  hour,  that  Baptism 
is  ordinarily,  but  not  absolutely,  necessary.  (See  Conserva- 
tive Reformation,  pp.  427,  seq.,  557,  seq.)  In  a  note  (Vol. 
III.  605),  Dr.  Hodge  says  :  "  We  are  sorry  to  see  that  Dr. 
Krauth  labors  to  prove  that  the  Westminster  Confession 
teaches  that  only  a  certain  part,  or  some  of  those,  who  die  in 
infancy  are  saved  ;  this  he  does  by  putting  his  own  construc- 
tion on  the  language  of  that  Confession.  We  can  only  say 
that  we  never  saw  a  Calvinistic  theologian  who  held  that  doc- 
trine. We  are  not  learned  enough  to  venture  the  assertion 
that  no  Calvinist  ever  held  it ;  but  if  all  Calvinists  are  re- 
sponsible for  what  every  Calvinist  has  ever  said,  and  all  Lu- 
therans are  responsible  for  everything  Luther  or  Lutherans 
have  ever  said,  then  Dr.  Krauth,  as  well  as  ourselves,  will 
have  a  heavy  burden  to  carry." 

We  say  in  all  sincerity  that  we  should  prefer  that  Dr.  Hodge 
should  be  right  on  the  question  here  involved.  We  wish  that 
the  Westminster  Confession  could  be  harmonized  with  the  view, 
that  all  who  die  in  infancy  are  certainly  saved.  We  wish  we 
could  be  brought  even  fairly  to  doubt  that  its  teachings  are  ir- 
reconcilable with  such  a  view.  We  should  be  glad  to  have  it 
shown  that  it  is  merely  our  mistaken  construction  of  the  Con- 
fession which  is  at  fault,  and  that  the  meaning  of  its  words,  on 
the  principles  of  correct  interpretation,  is  not  what  we  have 
supposed.  But  we  have  seen  what  Dr.  Hodge  "  never  saw." 
We  have  seen  more  than  one  Calvinistic  theologian  who  does 
hold  that  doctrine.  We  humbly  and  utterly  deprecate  the 
position  in  which  Dr.  Hodge  would  seem  to  insist  on  putting 
us,  if  we  venture  to  assert  that  some  Calvinists  do  hold  it,  as 
if  it  were  between  him  and  us  a  question  of  sufficient  learning, 
as  if  the  question  were,  do  we  know  more  about  Calvinistic  the- 
ology than  Dr.  Hodge  does?  Dr.  Hodge  has  gone  over  the  world 


Row  are  Confessions  to  be  Interpreted  f  11 

of  theological  literature  as  few  men  have  done.  We  acknow- 
ledge and  reverence  in  him  one  of  the  greatest  and  ripest 
scholars  of  our  age  ;  but  Apelles  acknowledges  that  a  cobbler 
may  be  authority  on  a  sandal.  And  what  we  shall  offer  in  this 
effort  to  show  that  we  are  not  mistaken  in  our  judgment  of  Cal- 
vinistic  teaching,  shall  be  offered  with  the  desire  not  fairly  to 
offend  against  the  canon  :  u  Ne  sutor  ultra." 

§4.    HOW  ARE  CONFESSIONS  TO  BE  INTERPRETED  ? 

We  have  certainly  said  nothing  to  justify  the  imputation  that 
we  think  that  every  Calvinist  is  responsible  for  what  every 
other  Calvinist  says.  The  caveat  of  Dr.  Hodge  must  have  re- 
ference to  what  he  supposes  we  would  say  in  defending  our 
position — to  wit,  that  it  is  supported  by  the  opinion  of  Calvin- 
istic  theologians  whom  we  may  have  seen,  though  he  has  not. 
But  we  do  not  intend  to  take  any  line  of  defense  open  to  the 
very  just  objection  which  Dr.  Hodge  makes.  Our  line  of 
defense  is  this  :  The  Confession  has  one  sense  onlv  ;  this 
sense  is  to  be  fixed  by  the  acknowledged  principles  of  interpre- 
tation ;  the  natural  sense  of  the  words,  as  they  impress  the 
minds  of  readers,  is,  costeris  paribus,  to  be  accepted  in  prefer- 
ence to  any  other  ;  in  case  of  dispute  as  to  their  meaning,  the 
different  parts  of  the  Confession  are  to  be  compared  with 
reference  to  the  light  they  shed  on  each  other  ;  if  opinions 
still  differ  as  to  the  sense,  the  usage  of  the  authors  of  the  Con- 
fession, of  the  great  divines  of  the  Church,  and  of  their  suc- 
cessors, the  official  and  sworn  teachers  and  defenders  of  its 
faith,  are  to  be  appealed  to,  to  show  how  the  words  were  un- 
derstood by  those  who  used  them,  by  those  who  subscribed 
them,  and  by  the  Church  in  general — and  what  is  the  sense 
most  in  harmony  with  the  logical  necessities  and  completeness 
of  the  system,  as  its    defenders  themselves  have  understood 


12  Review  of  Dr.  Hodge's  Systematic  Theology. 

them.  A  sense  fixed  by  these  processes  carries  with  it  a  moral 
probability  which  throws  the  whole  burden  of  proof  on  those 
who  deny  this  sense ;  they  must  admit  this  sense,  or  demon- 
strate its  incorrectness.  We  acknowledge  that  a  Church  is  to 
be  judged  by  its  standards,  and  not  by  its  divines,  as  they  add 
to,  take  from,  or  change  the  standards.  The  Confessions  of 
Churches  ought  to  be  guardians  of  its  liberties  as  well  as  pro- 
tectors of  its  purity.  But  we  cannot  judge  a  Church  by  its 
standards  unless  we  have  right  modes  of  interpreting  the 
standards.  The  standards  can  neither  conserve  the  freedom 
nor  the  purity  of  the  Church  unless  we  can  settle  their  true 
sense,  over  against  the  severity  which  puts  into  them  what  they 
do  not  mean,  and  the  laxity  which  takes  out  of  them  what  they 
do  mean. 

Such  indeed  is  the  moral  force  of  the  utterances  of  the 
authors  and  representative  men  of  Church  Confessions,  that 
it  is  sometimes  urged  as  more  than  counterbalancing  what 
would  be,  apart  from  it,  a  natural  sense  of  the  Confession. 
On  this  principle  the  great  Calvinistic  Synod  of  Dort,*  after 
conceding  that  "  the  words  of  the  third  Article  of  the  Ar- 
minians,  as  they  outwardly  sound  and  lie  before  us,  seem  to  be 
good  and  orthodox,"  goes  on  to  say:  "but  inasmuch  as — thus 
Chrysostora  long  ago  said — the  heresy  is  wont  to  be  in  the 
meaning  of  the  word,  the  meaning  of  these  words  is  to  be  de- 
termined, and  that  from  the  writings  and  books  of  the  Re- 
monstrants themselves."  With  its  proper  restriction  this 
principle  holds  good.  A  confession  that  punishments  are 
"  eternal"  if  those  who  make  it  are  avowed  Universalists,  has 
its  sense  fixed  by  that  fact.  A  confession  that  Christ  is 
"  divine  "  means  little  if  Socinians  make  it.  There  is  hardly 
a  page  of  Dr.  Hodge's  three  volumes  which  does  not  assume 

*  Actor.  Part  2,  dog.  ad  Artie.  III.,  p.  261.    Ed.  Dort. 


How  are  Confessions  to  be  Interpreted  ?  13 

the  correctness  of  this  principle,  alike  in  determining  the 
views  held  by  other  Churches,  and  in  establishing  his  own. 
It  is  on  the  basis  of  the  moral  probability  of  concurrent  testi- 
mony that  he  constantly  and  properly  assumes  that  he  has  the 
ability  to  present  a  correct  interpretation  of  the  Calvinistic 
system.  Throughout  he  takes  the  very  means,  and  the  only 
means,  we  propose  to  employ,  in  settling  in  disputed  cases  the 
precise  meaning  of  the  Confession  of  his  own  Church,  and  of 
other  Churches.  We  propose  no  test  for  Calvinism  which  we 
are  not  willing  to  apply  to  Lutheranism.  If  we  put  a  sense 
on  our  Confession  which  Dr.  Hodge  can  prove  to  be  in  con- 
flict with  the  views  held  at  the  time  of  its  framing  by  its 
authors,  and  out  of  harmony  with  the  other  parts  of  the 
system,  if  we  shall  define  words  in  it  in  a  sense  in  which  he 
can  show  its  authors  did  not  use  them,  and  in  which  they  were 
not  received  by  the  line  of  witnesses  who  are  acknowledged  to 
have  been  loyal  to  the  faith  of  the  Church,  then  shall  we  justify 
Dr.  Hodge  in  asserting  that  we  have  reached  that  sense  by 
putting  our  own  construction  on  its  language.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  if  we  shall  fix,  on  these  principles,  a  certain  sense 
on  the  familiar  terms  of  Calvinistic  Confessions  and  systems, 
we  shall  feel  that  Dr.  Hodge  in  denying  that  sense  is  thrown 
completely  on  the  defensive,  and  is  bound  to  show  that  his 
denial  does  not  rest  on  his  own  construction,  a  construction 
reached  without  the  natural  aids  which  history  brings  to  gram- 
mar in  the  interpretation  of  language. 

We  rejoice  that  for  himself  Dr.  Hodge  so  unequivocally 
takes  ground  against  the  whole  dark  theory  of  infant  damna- 
tion. If  he  be  right  in  asserting  that  it  never  follows  from 
the  Calvinistic  system,  we  are  glad  that  the  system  itself  is 
relieved  from  the  blot ;  if  he  be  mistaken  in  this  assertion,  we 
rejoice  still  that  'the  Calvinism  of  the  present  is  yielding  ;  we 


14  Review  of  Dr.  Hodge's  Systematic  Theology. 

rejoice  the  more  because  we  believe  that  in  yielding  this,  the 
old  historically  defined  system  yields  itself;  for  we  believe, 
and  propose  to  show,  that  logical  Calvinism  is  involved  in  a 
hopeless  entanglement  in  the  whole  matter  of  infant  salvation 
and  infant  Baptism. 

§  5.    THE  SALVATION  OF  INFANTS  DEPENDENT  ON  ABSOLUTE  PER- 
SONAL  ELECTION. 

The  Calvinistic  system  places  the  salvation  of  infants  on  the 
ground  of  a  divine  election  of  individuals. 

Heidegger.* — "To  those  (the  elect),  who  die  in  infancy,  Baptism 
seals  the  grace  of  regeneration.  .  .  It  cannot  be  doubted,  that  the  souls 
of  elect  infants  dying  in  infancy,  are  inserted  by  the  Spirit,  into  Christ, 
either  before  Baptism  or  at  least  in  Baptism.  .  .  The  Baptism  of  elect 
infants,  is  not  an  empty  figure.  .  .  The  elect  infants  receive  the  seal." 

WiTSius.f — "  Christ  hath  not  made  satisfaction  for  any  sin  which  He 
has  not  taken  on  Himself.  He  has  taken  no  sins  on  Himself  except 
those  of  the  elect.  The  remission  of  original  sin  by  the  blood  of  Christ 
has  been  obtained  for  none  except  for  him  who  is  elect."  "  To  the 
Orthodox,  disputing  of  the  efficacy  of  Baptism,  the  main,  if  not  the 
sole  inquiry,  is,  what  does  it  confer  on  elect  infants,  who  alone,  accord- 
ing to  the  strictness  of  the  Divine  judgment,  have  a  right  to  it  (quibus 
solis  ad  eum  jus  est)?  "  "  By  Baptism  the  good  things  of  the  covenant 
are  signed  and  sealed  to  elect  infants  as  things  belonging  to  them." 

Westminster  Confession.! — "  The  grace  promised  "  (in  Baptism) 
is  conferred  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  such  (whether  of  age  or  infants)  as 
that  grace  belongeth  unto,  according  to  the  counsel  of  God's  own  will," 

§  6.  INFANTS  ELECT  AND  REPROBATE. 

For  the  Calvinistic  system  distinctly  recognizes  "elect  in- 
fants" and  thus  always  virtually,  and  often  in  terms,  the  ex- 
istence of  "  reprobate  infants." 

Calvin.^ — "  If  those,  therefore,  to  whom  the  Lord  hith  vouchsafed  Bis 
election,  having  received  the  sign  of  regeneration,  depart  this  life  before 
they  grow  up,  He  reneweth  them  by  the  power  of  His  Spirit." 

*  Corpus  Theologiae  :    II.  449. 

f  Of  the  Efficacy  of  Baptiim  in  Infanta.     Mis.  Sacr.,  II.  621. 

%  XXVIII.  VI.  I  Institutes,  IV.,  XVI.,  21. 


Infants  Elect  and  Reprobate.  15 

Mcsculus.* — "  Since,  therefore,  this  discrimination  of  elect  and  repro- 
bate, in  neiv-bom  infants  (recens  natis  infanlibus),  is  hidden  from  our 
judgment,  it  is  not  fitting  that  we  should  inquire  into  it,  lest  by  igno- 
rance we  reject  vessels  of  grace." 

MAETYK.f — "  What  is  to  be  judged  of  the  soul  of  a  child  so  killed, 
having  as  yet  not  received  the  sacrament  (of  circumcision)  ?  I  answer 
that  we,  either  as  touching  his  salvation  or  condemnation,  can  affirm 
nothing  on  either  side.  For  if  he  pertained  to  the  number  of  the  elect 
so  that  he  was  predestinate  to  eternal  life,  there  is  no  cause  but  that  he 
may  be  saved.  But  if  he  were  a  vessel  to  that  end  made  of  God,  to  show 
forth  in  him  His  wrath,  and  so  to  be  condemned,  what  can  we  complain 
of  the  severity  of  God,  especially  seeing  we  are  all  born  the  children  of 
wrath  and  of  condemnation  ?" 

Alsted  John  Henry  (1588-1638)  says  of  Baptism.—"  The  children 
of  unbelievers  are  not  to  be  baptized— the  children,  both  of  whose 
parents  are  believers  or  one  of  whom  is  a  believer,  are  to  be  baptized — for 
the  infants  of  believers  are  in  the  covenant.  If  the  covenant,  which  is 
the  greater  thing,  belongs  to  them,  much  more  does  the  seal,  which  is 
the  less.  The  faith  of  parents  benefits  infants.":):  "  The  mode  of 
federation,  with  respect  to  infants  (we  mean  the  infants  of  believers, 
who  die  before  they  reach  the  years  of  discretion)  is  almost  hidden  to  us. 
Yet  this  is  certain,  that  in  the  foundation  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  they 
are  justified,  and  blessed,  and  hence  are  endowed  with  true  faith.  Elect 
infants  are  falsely  called  unbelievers,  for  though  elect  infants  who  die 
in  infancy,  for  of  these  we  speak,  be  destitute  of  what  is  called  actual 
faith,  they  are  not  on  that  account  destitute  of  all  faith.  For  as  they 
have  the  Holy  Ghost,  it  is  impossible  that  there  should  be  no  operation 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  them  ;  though  it  be  secret  and  unknown  to  us. 
Nor  can  they  be  called  unbelievers.  For  as  Christ  is  received  by  faith 
only,  and  Christ  is  given  to  elect  infants,  as  having  union  and  com- 
munion with  Him ;  we  cannot  deny  that  they  have  faith.  Faith  in 
principle  and  seed,  and  virtually,  is  to  be  attributed  to  elect  infants."  § 

The  Swiss  theologians  at  Dort  ||  say :  "  That  there  is  an  election 
and  reprobation  of  infa?its,  no  less  than  of  adults,  we  cannot  deny,  in  the 
face  of  Ood  who  loves,  *  and  hates,  unborn  children  (nondum  natos  amat:t 
et  odit)." 

Chamier.H" — "In  the  case  of  these  (infants)  Paul  has  most  expressly 
established  by  testimonies  of  Scripture,  that  there  is  not  only  a  pre- 
destination unto  salvation,  but  also  a  reprobation.  And  indeed  it  must 
either  be  asserted  that  no  infants  are  destined  to  punishment,  or,  it  must 

*  Loci  Communes,  336.        f  Common  Places,  IV.  110.  j  Theologia,  Scho- 

las'ica  Didictica,  Hanovise.  1618,  4to.  pp.    815,  816.      The  copy  we  use  is  in  tbe 
library  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania.  §  Do.  785.  ||  Acta  Sy-, 

nod.  Dordr.  Judio.  40.        f  Panstrat.  Cathol.  III.,  viii.,  8,.  11,1-1,117.. 


16  Review  of  Dr.  Hodge's  Systematic   Theology. 

be  confessed  that  some  are  destined  without  respect  to  co-operation  or 
repugnance.  Since  the  former  is  absurd,  the  second  is  to  be  held  as 
true."  "  There  are  two  classes  of  mankind  who  perish,  some  utterly  de- 
serted in  natural  corruption,  and  ignorance  of  Divine  Truth,  as  the 
most  part  of  infants  outside  the  Church."* 

Mark  Frederic  Wendelin  (1584 — 1652)  was  one  of  the 
greatest  of  the  German  Reformed  dogmaticians,  and  polemics 
of  the  Seventeenth  Century.  His  Theologia  Christiana  (the 
smaller  work — the  larger  one  was  posthumous  1656)  first  ap- 
peared 1634,  and  was  reviewed  by  John  Gerhard,  to  whom 
Wendelin  refers  in  his  Theological  Exercitations,  1652.  In  this 
very  elaborate  defence  of  Calvinism,  he  shows   at  large,  that 

"  Baptism  does  not  change  infants  spiritually,"  "that  none  are  to  be 
admitted  to  Baptism,  but  those  who  are  in  God's  covenant,"  and  the 
"  arguments  are  answered  by  which  Lutherans  prove  that  all  infants  are 
regenerated  in  the  Act  of  Baptism. f  "That  Baptism,  as  a  laver  of  re- 
generation, is  applied  for  the  remission  of  sins,  all  the  Reformed 
Churches  teach.  But  it  is  one  thing  to  say,  that  infants  are  baptized 
for  the  remission  of  sins,  it  is  another  thing  to  say,  that  they  are 
baptized,  that  they  may  be  regenerated."  J  Gerhard  had  urged  that  if 
"  the  hypothesis  of  the  absolute  decree  of  reprobation  stands,  this  affirma- 
tion can  be  made,  not  of  all  infants,  but  of  the  elect  only,  as  in  truth,  the 
Calvinistic  doctors  in  various  passages,  actually  explain  it."  Wendelin 
with  perfect  frankness  replies  :  "  There  is  no  need  here  of  inferences  or  of 
citations,  to  convince  me.  Of  my  own  accord,  and  freely  and  expressly 
I  confess,  with  Ursinus  and  our  other  teachers,  that  not  all  who  are 
baptized,  whether  adults  or  infants,  become  participants  of  the  grace  of 
Christ,  for  the  election  of  God  is  most  free  :  it  is  therefore  a  prerogative 
of  the  elect  alone,  which  Baptism  seals. "$ 

"  With  one  mouth,  all  the  Reformed  Churches  teach  that  all  the  in- 
fants of  Christians,  draw  from  their  nativity  original  sin,  and  through 
it  are  obnoxious  to  eternal  death."  "  All  infants  of  Christians,  even 
before  Baptism  are  holy,  with  a  federal  and  external  holiness,  on  account 
of  which  they  ought  to  be  reputed  a  part  of  the  visible  Church  and 
people  of  God,  and  as  federates  be  admitted  to  the  seal  of  the  covenant. 
Some  infants   of   Christians,  even  before   Baptism,  nay  even  in   their 

*  Panstrat.  Catho1.  VII.,  L,  18,  99.  fExercitationes  Theologicte,  Casselis. 
1652, 4to.     See  the  very  copious  Index  :  Baptismus.       J  Exercitatio.  xxxvii.  $18. 

#  Exercitatio.  xxxvii.    19. 


Actual  Perdition  of  Infants  According  to   Calvinism.     17 

mothers'  womb,  not  indeed  by  nature,  but  by  grace,  are  holy  with  an  in- 
ternal sanctity,  and  these  infants  are  believers  and  regenerate.  Charity 
presumes  this  sanctity  in  regard  to  each  one,  no  less  before  Baptism, 
than  after  it."  "  The  internal  sanctity  is  not  necessarily  con- 
joined with  the  federal,  but  in  many  infants  and  adults  is  separated  from 
it.  This  we  learn  from  the  event ;  for  those  who  were  once  sanctified 
never  wholly  lose  their  sanctity.'"*  "  The  case  of  infants  born  of  those 
not  federate  is  different,  to  whom  that  grace  is  not  promised.  Hence 
they  are  not  federate,  and,  still  less  regenerated  by  the  Spirit."f  "  In 
general  it  is  very  truly  said,  of  a  Christian  is  born,  not  a  heathen  but  a 
Christian,  as  a  Jew  is  born  of  a  Jew,  a  citizen  of  a  citizen."  J  "  The 
Word  of  God  has  no  efficacy  unless  it  be  understood.  The  Spirit  of  God 
operates  without  the  word,  not  only  on  infants  born,  but  on  infants  un- 
born."§ 

Westminster  Confession  X.  iii. —  "Elect  infants,  dying  in  in- 
fancy, are  regenerated." 

§  7.    INFANTS  WORTHY  OF  PERDITION. 

For  Calvinism  holds  that  all  infants  are  bound  over  to 
God's  wrath  and  made  subject  to  eternal  misery  ;  that  is,  that 
God  might  justly  condemn  forever  every  infant. 

Heidegger:  ||  (1633—1698)  — "For  original  sin  the  penalty  is  eternal ; 
it  is  the  penalty  both  of  loss  and  of  sense,  the  sense  both  of  the  worm, 
and  of  the  fire,  though  in  some,  as  for  example  in  infants  it  is  milder,  in 
others  it  is  severer." 

Westminster  Confession.  XL,  vi. — "  Every  sin  both  original  and 
actual,  *  *  *  doth,  in  its  own  nature,  bring  guilt  upon  the  sinner, 
whereby  he  is  bound  over  to  the  wrath  of  God  and  curse  of  the  law, 
and  so  made  subject  to  death,  with  all  miseries,  spiritual,  temporal,  and 
eternal."^ 

§  8.     ACTUAL  PERDITION  OF  INFANTS  ACCORDING  TO   CALVINISM. 

Holding  that  all  infants  deserve  damnation,  that  the  elec- 
tion of  God  alone  can  save  them  from  it,  and  that  this  election 
does  not  extend  to  all  infants,  Calvinism  of  necessity  teaches 
that  some  infants  perish. 

Calvin.** — "  As    to   infants  they  seem  to  perish  not  by  their   own 

*  Exercitatio.  xxxvii.  1.        f  Do.  15.         J  Do  3.         jJ  Do.  8.         ||  Do.  10. 

%  Corpus  Theologise,  Tigur,  1700.  Fol.  I.  361.    *•  Eaekiel  XVIII.,  Opera  iv.  167. 

2 


18  Review  of  Dr.  Hodge's  Systematic  Theology. 

fault  but  by  the  fault  of  another;  but  there  is  a  double  solution. 
Though  sin  does  not  yet  appear  in  them,  yet  it  is  latent;  for  they  bear 
corruption  shut  up  in  the  soul,  so  that  before  God  they  are  damnable." 
"That  infants  who  are  to  be  saved  (as  certainly  out  of  that  age 
some  are  saved)  must  be  before  regenerated  by  the  Lord  is  clear."  * 

Holding  that  infants  must  be  regenerated  in  order  to  be 
saved,  Calvinism  teaches  that  some  infants  die  unregenerated, 
and  are  lost. 

Martyr.! — "  Augustine  adjudgeth  young  infants  to  hell  fire,  if  they 
die  not  regenerated.  And  the  Holy  Scriptures  do  seem  to  favor  his  part ; 
for  in  the  last  judgment,  there  shall  be  but  only  a  double  sentence  pro- 
nounced. There  is  no  third  place  appointed  between  the  saved  and 
condemned  *  *  *  We  will  say,  therefore,  with  Augustine,  and 
with  the  Holy  Scripture,  that  they  must  be  punished." 

Spanheim,  the  elder,  in  arguing  against  the  universality  of  the 
Divine  will,  that  men  should  be  saved,  says  :  "  Either  God  wills  to  have 
mercy  unto  the  salvation  of  the  Gentiles  outside  of  the  covenant, 
whether  deprived  of  life  in  the  cradle,  in  the  earliest  infancy,  or  attain- 
ing to  some  age,  or  He  does  not  If  He  does  not,  the  universality  of 
His  pity  goes  to  the  ground.  If  He  does,  it  follows  that  to  numberless 
ones  to  whom  not  a  word  concerning  Christ  and  the  Gospel  was  ever 
made  known,  there  exists  a  way  to  salvation,  outside  .of  Christ  and  the 
covenant  of  Ood."  "  The  universal  pity  overthrows  the  decree  of  elec- 
tion and  reprobation. J" 

Molinaeus.^ — "  Of  the  infants  of  unbelievers."  "  We  dare  not 
promise  salvation  to  any  (infant)  remaining  outside  Christ's  covenant. 
They  are  indeed  by  nature  'children  of  wrath'  (Eph.  ii.  3),  and 
'  strangers  from  the  covenant  of  promise,'  (Verse  12).  They  are  pro- 
nounced (1  Corinth,  vii.  14)  'unclean,'  while  that  they  are  contrasted 
with  the  'holy.'  From  which  curse,  inasmuch  as  no  one  is  freed  ex- 
cept through  Christ,  I  do  not  find  that  the  benefit  of  Christ  pertains  to 
them." 

CoccEius.|| — "Elect  Infants"  *  *  "are  not  conceived  and  born  as 
are  the  children  of  the  Gentiles,  concerning  whom  the  presumption  is 
certain,  that  they,  with  their  mother's  milk,  drink  in  godlessness  unto 
destruction. " 

Dr.    Twiss,    Prolocutor   of  the    Westminster    Assembly. — 

*  Institut.  iv.  xvi.  17.         f  Common  Place,  I.,  234.        J  Exercitat.  de  Grat.,  uni- 
yersali,  4.        $  Thesaurus  Disputit.  Theolog.  in  Sedan.  Acad.  Genev.  1661.  I.  212. 
||  Cateches.  Palat.      Quaes   LXXIV. 


Actual  Perdition  of  Infants  According  to  Calvinism.     19 

William  Twiss  (1575 — 1646)  was  renowned  for  his  learning, 
his  piety,  and  his  rigid  Calvinism.  He  was  a  strong  Supralap- 
sarian.  He  nobly  represents  the  firmness  and  internal  con- 
sistency of  the  true  old  Calvinist.  He  was  worthy  the  honor 
conferred  on  him  by  both  Houses  of  Parliament,  in  electing  him 
Prolocutor  of  the  Westminster  Assembly  of  Divines.  "  He  was 
universally  allowed  to  be  the  ablest  opponent  of  Arminianism 
in  that  age."  His  greatest  work  is  his  Vindicise  Gratiae,*  his 
Vindication  of  the  Grace,  Power  and  Providence  of  God.  It 
was  written  in  reply  to  the  Criticism  of  Arrninius  (1560 — 
1609)  on  Perkins,  (1558—1602). 

Twiss  says :  "Many  Infants  depart  from  this  life  in  original  sin,  and  con- 
sequently are  condemned  to  eternal  death,  on  account  of  original  sin 
alone :  therefore  from  the  sole  transgression  of  Adam  condemnation  to 
eternal  death  has  followed  upon  many  infants." f 

(Westminster  Confession:  X.,  iii.,  iv.) :  "  Elect  infants  *  *  are  saved. 
*  *  So  too  are  all  other  elect  persons.  Others  not  elected  *  *  cannot 
be  saved." 

The  doctrine  of  genuine  Calvinism  then  is  that  there  are 
reprobate  infants  who  are  left  to  the  total  penalty  which  origi- 
nal sin  brings  and  merits. 

What  that  is,  the  Larger  Catechism  defines  (Q.  27) :  "  The  fall  brought 
upon  mankind  the  loss  of  communion  with  God,  his  displeasure  and 
curse  ;  so  that  we  are  by  nature  children  of  wrath,  bound  slaves  to  Satan, 
and  justly  liable  to  all  punishments  in  this  world  and  that  which  is  to 
come. '  The  punishments  of  sin  in  the  world  to  come  "  are  everlasting 
separation  from  the  comfortable  presence  of  God,  and  most  grievous  tor- 
ments in  soul  and  body,  without  intermission,  in  hell-fire  forever." 
(Q.  29).  In  this  state  of  sin  and  misery  God  leaves  all  men,  except  his 
elect.  (Q.  30).  "Every  sin,  both  original  and  actual,  *  *  *  doth  in  its 
own  nature  bring  guilt  upon  the  sinner,  whereby  he  is  bound  over  to  the 
wrath  of  God  and  curse  of  the  law,  and  so  made  subject  to  death,  with 
all  the  miseries,  spiritual,  temporal,   and  eternal."     (Westminster 

*  The  first  Edition  was  published  1032,  Folio.  The  one  from  which  we  quote  is 
the  Second.  Anisterdim,  1632.  4to.  It  is  in  the  Library  of  the  University  of 
Pennsylvania.  f  Vindicioe,  I.  48. 


20  Revieiv  of  Dr.  Hodge 's  Systematic  Theology. 

Confess.  VI.,  6).     It  is  from  this  the  "  elect  infants  "  are  delivered,  it  8 
to  this  the  "  reprobate  infants"  are  abandoned. 

§  9.    PRESUMPTION  AND  ASSURANCE  IN  REGARD  TO  INFANTS. 

Calvinism  has  the  "  certain  presumption  "  that  the  children 
of  unbelievers  are  lost,  but  Calvinism  has  no  assurance  that  the 
infants  of  believers  are  saved. 

Martyr  * — Neither  must  it  be  thought  that  I  would  promise  salva- 
tion unto  all  the  children  of  the  faithful,  which  dej>art  without  the  sacra- 
ment (baptism) :  for  if  I  should  do  so  I  might  be  counted  rash.  I  leave 
them  to  be  judged  of  the  mercy  of  God,  seeing  I  have  no  knowledge  of 
the  secret  election  and  predestination.  "  I  dare  not  promise  certain  sal- 
vation, particularly  unto  any  that  departeth  hence.  For  there  be  some 
children  of  the  saints  which  belong  not  unto  predestination."f 

"  The  children  of  the  godly,  departing  without  baptism,  may  be  saved 
*  *  *  if  they  appertain  to  the  number  of  such  as  be  predestinate.  Also, 
I  do  except  all  others,  if  any  there  be,  which  by  the  secret  council  of  God 
belong  unto  perdition. "J 

Chamier.§— "  We  deny  that  sins  are  really  forgiven  them  who  do  not 
belong  to  the  eternal  election :  as  Esau  was  never  forgiven,  though  he 
was  circumcised,  for  he  was  hateful  to  God  before  he  was  born." 

Masson  (Becman.)|| — "Not  all  baptized  children  are  true  regenerate 
Christians,  who  shall  be  saved ;  for  God  the  Lord  hath  reserved  to  Him- 
self His  secret  foreknowledge  toward  children,  also,  yet  unborn." 

Pareus.^ — "  Neither  Zwingli,  nor  Calvin,  nor  any  one  of  us,  places, 
without  distinction  in  heaven  with  the  saints,  all  infants  who  die  without 
baptism,  whether  unborn  or  in  birth,  or  while  they  are  carried  to  baptism, 
but  they  pronounce  this,  by  the  law  of  charity,  of  the  infants  alone  of 
the  Church,  born  in  the  covenant  if  they  be  prevented  by  death  *  *  * 
nevertheless,  without  interference  with  the  election  of  God,  which  as  of 
old  in  the  family  of  Abraham  and  Isaac,  so  in  after  time  often  hath  made, 
and  doth  make  a  discrimination  between  the  children  of  believers,  a  dis- 
crimination which  we  are  neither  to  search  into  nor  to  scoff  at,  but  to 
adore.  (Rom.  ix.  11).  This  is  the  constant  judgment  of  ourselves,  and 
of  our  divines  concerning  this  question." 

Bodius.** — "  Nor  yet,  meanwhile,  do  we  so  bind  to  the  faith  of  be- 

*  Common  Places.     Trans,  by  Marten,  1533.     IV.,  120. 

■)-  Common  Places.,  I.,  233.  %  Common  Places,  IV.,  187.  He  uses  nearly  the 
same  words  in  bis  Comm.  on  Rom.  V.,  304.  £  L.,  XIII.,  de  Fid.  Cap.  XXI.,  34, 
p.  224.   ||  VI.,  90.    If  Castigat.  in.  Bellarmin.  de  amissionegratiae.  1613.  L.VL,  871. 

**  On  Epbes.  quoted  by  Witsius.     Misc.  Sacr.  II.,  617. 


The  Election  of  Children  and  their  Death.  21 

lieving  parents  the  grace  and  pity  of  God  toward  infants,  as  to  do  any 
prejudice  to  His  free  and  secret  election  ;  who  knoweth  His  own,  whether 
of  infants  or  adult  professors  of  faith,  and  hath  them  sealed  with  a  seal 
known  to  Himself  alone." 

Wrrsros.* — "  These  (the  prerogatives  of  the  federated  infants)  are  not 
to  be  stretched  to  the  point  of  supposing  that  all  the  children  of  pious 
parents  are  ordained  to  salvation.  For  Holy  Scripture  and  daily 
experience  prove  that  the  offspring  of  the  best,  mature  into  the  very 
worst  condition  of  soul,  and  are  persistent  to  their  own  destruction." 

Hence  a  doubt  that  the  parent  was  elect,  cast  doubt  on  the 
presumption  that  the  infant  was  elect,  and  the  overthrow  of 
the  proof  that  the  parent  was  elect  destroyed  the  presumption 
that  the  child  was  elect. 

Sibel.— f"  We  admonish  parents  that  they  should  enter  into  them- 
selves, and  should  search  themselves  whether  they  are  partakers  of  the 
covenant,  endowed  with  saving  faiih,  armed  with  the  purpose  of  new 
obedience.  If  they  discern  this  in  themselves,  there  is  no  reason  why  they 
should  doubt  of  the  election  and  salvation  of  the  children  whom  God 
has  called  out  of  this  life  in  infancy." 

§  10.    The  Election  of  Children   and  their  Death. 

Calvinism  cannot  consistently  allow  that  the  infantile  age,  or 
the  time  of  the  child's  death,  is  in  any  way  connected  with  the 
moral  probabilities  of  its  election. 

The  Theologians  of  Great  Britain,  at  the  Synod  of  Dort,  argue 
against  the  Remonstrant  proposition  that  "  all  infants  dying  before  the 
use  of  reason  are  saved,"  the  Arminian  position  then,  the  Calvinistic 
opinion  according  to  Dr.  Hodge  now.  In  their  argument  they  declare 
as  their  official  judgment  :J  "  As  regards  the  Divine  election,  the  cir- 
cumstance of  age  is  a  thing  that  does  not  belong  thereto  (impertinens), 
and  has  no  effect  whatever,  (nihil  prorsus  operatur.") 

Westminster  Confession,  Chap.  III.,  v.— "Those  of  mankind  that 
are  predestinated  unto  life,  God,  *  *  according  to  the  secret,  counsel  *  * 
of  His  will  *  *  hath  chosen  *  *  out  of  His  mere  free  grace  and  love, 
without  any  foresight  of  faith  *  *  or  any  other  thing  in  the  creature,  as 
conditions  or  causes  moving  Him  thereunto." 

•  Miscel.  Sacr.  II.,  615.  f  In  EP-  J*dv  Vol.  IV.,  138.  f  Acta  Sjnod.  Dor- 
drecht! habit.  Dordr. -1620.  Judic,    p.    10. 


22  Review  of  Dr.  Hodge's  Systematic  Theology. 

f~  Either  the  foreseen  something  in  the  creature,  to  wit,  its  early 
death,  moves  God,  or  it  does  not.  If  it  moves  Him,  the  doc- 
trine of  absolute  predestination  is  annihilated ;  if  it  does  not 
move  Him,  the  whole  moral  presumption  in  regard  to  any  dif- 
ference in  favor  of  dying  infants  is  of  no  force  whatever.  And 
yet  it  is  obviously  this  moral  presumption  which  has  overcome 
the  stern  demands  of  the  system,  has  made  Calvinists  deny 
what  even  Arminians  under  the  stress  created  by  Calvinism 
were  at  first  compelled  to  admit,  and  has  led  them  not  only  to 
reject  the  doctrine  of  infant  damnation,  but  has  made  them  un- 
willing to  believe  that  it  was  ever  implied  in  their  Confession, 
and  maintained  by  their  divines.  Nor  have  there  been  wanting 
Calvinistic  divines  of  the  highest  order,  who  have  abandoned 
entirely  this  part  of  the  Calvinistic  doctrine,  and  have  accepted 
in  substance  the  Lutheran  view.  Such  were  Le  Blanc,  and 
Jurieu.*  Nor  can  we  wonder  at  this.  The  Calvinistic  system 
furnishes  no  ground  of  'positive  assurance  that  any  infant  what- 
ever dying  in  infancy  is  saved.  As  Lutherans,  we  have  a  clear 
faith  resting  on  a  specific  covenant  in  the  case  of  a  baptized 
child,  and  a  well  grounded  hope  resting  on  an  all-embracing 
mercy  in  the  case  of  an  unbaptized  child. 

To  Calvinism  the  baptism  authenticates  nothing.  What  it 
is  in  any  case,  even  as  a  sign,  is  a  secret  bound  up  with 
another  secret.  The  most  that  Calvinism  can  do  in  the  most 
hopeful  case  is  to  cherish  a  presumption  in  charity,  that  the 
child's  parents  may  be  elect,  and  a  presumption  on  that  pre- 
sumption that  the  child  may  be  elect,  and  therefore  saved — 
while  in  the  darkest  case  the  presumption  is  that  the  class  of 
children  it  embraces  is  lost.  The  same  element  in  Calvinism, 
which  on  the  basis  of  a  secret  council  forbids  it  to  affirm  of  any 

•Witsius,  Miscell.      Sacr.    II.  Exc.   XIX.  LXII.  LXIV. 


Hereditary  Exemption  from  the  Common  Lot. 


23 


one  particular  child  that  that  child  is  lost,  forbids  it  equally 
to  affirm  of  any  one  particular  child  that  that  child  is  certainly 
s  ived  :  and  the  sort  of  presumption  on  which  Calvinism  argues 
that  a  few  children  may  be  saved,  is  overwhelming  in  fixing 
the  conclusion  that  the  great  masses  of  children  are  lost. 

§  11.     HEREDITARY   RIGHTS    OF   INFANTS. 

Calvinism  holds  that  the  rights  of  infants  in  the  Church  are 
hereditary  rights,  bound  up  with  their  natural  descent. 

Calvin.* — ''  Unless  God  transmit  His  grace  from  the  fathers  to  the 
sons,  to  receive  new-born  infants  into  the  Church,  would  be  a  mere  pro- 
fanation of  Baptism."  "The  children  of  believers,  who  are  horn  in  the 
Church,  we  say  are  of  the  household  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  *  *  Inas- 
much as  God  hath  adopted  the  children  of  believers,  before  they  were 
born,  we  draw  the  inference  that  they  are  not  to  be  defrauded  of  the 
outward  sign."  f 

Zanchius.* — "  All  are  to  be  baptized  who,  on  account  of  the  piety  of 
the  parents  are  believed  to  belong  to  the  covenant." 

WiTSius.g—  "It  is  a  thing  confessed  by  all  the  orthodox  (the  Calvin* 
ists),  that,  although  it  be  not  safe  curiously  to  search  into  the  secrets  of 
the  divine  counsels,  and  to  determine  many  things  concerning  the  lot 
of  infants,  dying  in  infancy  ;  yet  that  the  prerogative  is  great,  of  those 
infants,  whose  parents  are  in  the  saving  communion  of  God's  covenant." 

Westminster  Confession,  xxvii. :  "  The  visible  Church  .... 
consists  of  all  those  throughout  the  world  that  profess  the  true  religion, 
together  with  their  children."    So  Larger  Catechism,  Q.  C2. 

§  12.    HEREDITARY    EXEMPTION   FROM   THE   COMMON    LOT. 
Hence  in  the  Calvinistic    system   the  children   of   believers 
seem  to  be  exempt  from  the  common  lot  in  some  sense. 

Calvin.  || — The  propagation  of  sin  and  damnation  in  the  seed  of 
Adam  is  universal ;  all,  therefore,  not  one  excepted,  are  included  within 
this  curse,  whether  they  spring  from  believers  or  from  the  godless.  .  . 
The  condition  of  nature  is  therefore  equal  in  all,  so  that  they  are  sub- 
ject alike  to  sin  and  eternal  death.     That  the  Apostle  here  attributes  a 

*  IL  Defens.  de  Sacrament.  Opera  VIII.  6S3.  f  On  Acts  X.  47.  J  Opera,  VIII. 
516.     gDeEfficac.     Bapt.  in  Infantib.     Miscell.     Sacr.  II.  615.  ||  1  Corinth, 

vii.  14.     Hebrews  vi.  2. 


24  Review  of  Dr.  Hodge's  Systematic  Theology. 

special  privilege  to  the  children  of  believers,  flows  from  the  blessing  of 
the  covenant,  by  the  supervention  of  which  the  curse  of  nature  is  re- 
moved. The  children  of  believers  are  exempted  from  the  common  lot  of 
the  human  race,  as  they  are  separated  unto  the  Lord."  "  Those  that 
were  without  (the  church),  were  not  to  be  admitted  to  baptism  till  they 
had  made  a  profession  of  faith.  But  the  infant  children  of  believers,  as 
they  were  adopted  from  the  womb,  and  by  right  of  the  promise,  per- 
tained to  the  body  of  the  Church,  were  baptized." 

§  13.   JTJDAIZING   VIEW. 

The  logical  Calvinism  runs  out  in  fact  into  a  Judaizing 
construction  of  the  covenant,  and  of  the  relation  of  infants  to 
it. 

Pareus.* — "  The  children  of  Christians  are  born  Christians,  as  the 
children  of  Jews  were  born  Jews."  "They  are  born  in  the  covenant 
and  are  citizens  of  the  Church."  "  The  infants  of  Christians  are  citi- 
zens of  the  Church,  are  born  in  the  covenant,  with  federal  grace,  and 
saints  of  saints :  as  citizens  are  born  of  citizens,  the  free  are  born  of  the 
free,  slaves  are  born  of  slaves."! 

Gurtler.J — "  Christian  infants  are  federates  of  God,  partakers  of 
the  good  things  promised  in  the  covenant,  citizens  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  defended  by  angels,  and  heirs  of  eternal  life,  therefore  not  to  be 
deprived  of  the  sign  of  the  covenant." 

All  this  they  are  (if  elect)  born  to  in  their  natural  birth  of 
believers,  and  having  all  this  already,  the  sign  is  to  be  given 
them. 

§  14.  CUTTING   OFF  OF   INFANTS    FROM  THE  COVENANT. 

The  Calvinistic  system  holds  that  the  parental  neglect  to 
have  a  child  baptized  cuts  off  the  child  from  the  covenant,  as 
in  the  Jewish  nation. 

Calvin. |] — "Inasmuch  as  it  is  not  in  man's  good  pleasure  to  sunder 
what  God  has  joined  together  :  no  one  can  spurn  or  neglect  the  sign, 
without  casting  away  the  Word  itself,  and  depriving  himself  of  the  bless- 
ing therein  offered.    Whosoever,  Baptism  neglected,  pretends  that  he  is 

*  Irenicon,  262.     f  Comm.  in  Rom.  XI.     1143. 
%  Instit.   Theolog.  S44.     ||  On  Genes.  XVII.  14.  Opera,  Amstelod.  1671,  p.  91. 


A  Pious  Fiction.  25 

content  with  the  bare  promise,  treads  under  foot,  as  far  as  in  him  lies, 
the  blood  of  Christ,  or  at  least  permits  it  not  to  flow  to  his  children,  who 
are  to  be  washed.  Therefore  the  contempt  of  the  sign  is  followed  by  the 
just  penalty,  the  privation  of  grace,  inasmuch  as  by  the  godless  divorce, 
or  rather  the  tearing  asunder  of  the  sign  and  of  the  Word,  the  covenant 
of  God  is  violated." 

Cocceius.— *"  If  they  be  not  baptized,  there  would  be  an  abnegation 
of  the  covenant  of  God,  as  if  believers  had  not  a  promise  concerning 
their  children,  but  as  if  they  were  in  the  same  lot  in  which  the  children 
of  unbelievers  are." 

§  15.  ELECT  PARENTS  AND  ELECT  INFANTS. 

The  presumption  that  infants  are  elect  is  based  upon  the  pre- 
sumption that  the  parents  are  elect.  It  is  not  enough  that  the 
parents  are  members  of  the  visible  Church,  nor  that  before 
men  they  sustain  a  good  character  for  piety — they  must  be 
elect. 

GoMARUS.f — "  We  piously  believe  that  the  infants  of  those  who  are 
in  God's  covenant  through  Ghrist,  and  true  believers,  are  also  elect." 

In  the  various  passages  we  have  cited,  it  is  always  the  pre- 
sumption that  the  parents  are  elect  and  therefore  believers  ; 
that  is  the  basis  of  the  presumption  that  their  children  are 
elect.  The  Church  membership  of  the  parent,  in  itself  has  no 
bearing  on  the  election  of  the  child,  except  that  when  people 
profess  religion,  we  charitably  presume  they  have  it,  and  pre- 
suming that  they  are  elect,  we  presume  that  their  children  may 
be  elect. 

§  16.   A   PIOUS   FICTION. 

But  this  presumption  is  but  a  presumption  in  any  case.  In 
the  best  case  the  faith  of  elect  parents  that  their  children  are 
certainly  sanctified,  rests  after  all  on  a  pious  fiction.  No 
parent    can,    according    to   logical    Calvinism,  have    any    real 

*  Cateehesis.Kel.  Christ.  Q.  LXIV.         f  Acta  Synod,  Dors'.  III.  24. 


26  Revieio  of  Dr.   Hodge  s  Systematic  Theology. 

assurance  in  regard  to   any  particular  child,  that   it  is  elect, 
sanctified,  and  in  the  covenant. 

Beza,  at  the  Colloquy  at  Montbeliard  :*  "  The  Holy  Spirit  exer- 
cises His  power  in  the  elect  alone.  .  .  the  other*  who  are  condemned, 
and  not  elect,  being  left.  .  .  The  adoption  is  offered  in  circumcision, 
to  all  who  are  circumcised  ;  but  the  elect  aloae  receive  it,  whose  eyes 
God  has  opened,  that  they  may  see  and  be  saved.  The  rest,  to  whom 
God  hath  not  vouchsafed  this  grace,  are  left  to  His  righteous  judgment, 
and  yet  God  remains  true.  The  same  takes  place  in  Baptism,  which 
many  thousand  infants  receive,  who  yet  are  never  regenerated,  but  perish 
forever." 

Beza's  words,  as  they  were  generally  understood,  were  so  often  quoted 
against  the  Calvinistic  system,  that  Christian  Becmann  (under  the  as- 
sumed name  of  Masson)  insists  that  they  have  been  perverted,  and  that 
Beza  meant  that  "  many  thousands  of  baptized  children  become  godless 
and  are  lost,  after  they  reach  the  age  of  adults."  Masson  could  hardly 
have  read  the  Acts  of  the  Colloquy,  or  he  would  have  seen  that  in  An- 
dreaj's  reply  to  Beza,  are  these  words  :  "  Tt  is  a  very  dreadful  thing  to 
hear  you  say  that  many  thousand  infants  are  baptized,  who  are  never 
regenerated,  but  perish  forever ;  nor  do  I  think  there  is  a  single  person 
in  this  body  of  hearers  who  will  agree  with  you  in  this."  To  this  Beza 
replied  not  a  word.  Andrea?  further  said  :  "  It  is  a  bad  thing  on  your 
part  that  you  leave  pious  parents  in  perpetual  doubt  whether  their  chil- 
dren have  been  adopted  as  sons  of  God  through  the  Baptism  they  have 
received.  For  according  to  y  >ur  answers.  .  .  it  cannot  and  ought 
not  to  be  certainly  pronounced  that  a  baptized  infant  is  adopted  as  God's 
child  or  regenerated,  but  that  it  should  only  be  thought  probable  that 
they  will  be  endowed  with  the  fruit  of  adoption,  God's  secret  judgment 
being  left  to  Himself." 

To  this  Beza  repbed  :  '  Each  of  us  can  judge  and  pronounce  concern- 
ing ourselves,  whether  we  be  regenerate  or  not ;  but  a  judgment  concern- 
ing others  may  be  doubtful  and  false." 

Momma,!  who  boasts  that  it  was  his  "  supremest  solicitude  not  to  de- 
part a  nails  breadth  from  the  faith  and  Confession  of  the  Reformed 
Church,"  is  more  candid  than  Masson,  and  stamps  Andrea?  with  the 
epithet  "crude,"  for  his  counter  judgment  to  Beza. 

Beza.J  -"  If  it  be  objected  that  not  all  born  of  faithful  parents  are 
elect,  and  consequently  not  all  sanctified,  since  God  did  not  elect  all  the 

*  Acta  Colloq.  Montis  Belligartensis.  Anno  C.  1586.  Tubingas,  1594.  p.  479. 
Do-auz   dein  Lttein  verteutscht :  Tubingen,  1587,  p.  837. 

f  De  Varia  Conditione,  sub  Oeconom.,  etc.  Basilese  1718,  11.207.  J  De  Spirit. 
Eac.  IV.  29. 


A  Pious  Fiction.  27 

children  of  Abraham  and  Isaac,  we  are  not  without  an  answer.  For 
though  we  do  not  in  the  least  deny  that  these  things  are  so ;  yet  we  say 
this  secret  judgment  is  to  be  left  to  God,  and  in  general  (unless  there  be 
something  in  the  way,  from  which  the  opposite  can  be  gathered),  we 
presume  from  the  formula  of  promise,  that  they  who  are  born  of  faith- 
ful parents,  or  of  one  faithful  parent,  are  sanctified." 

Zanchitjs  :*  "  We  believe  that  elect  infants,  when  they  are  baptized, 
are  not  baptized  with  water  alone,  but  are  endowed  also  with  the  Spirit 
of  Regeneration."' 

BuCAN.f — "  Children  (bnrn  of  believing  parents,  or  of  one  believing 
pareut,)  the  Apostle  calls  'holy'  (1  Cor.  vii.  14):  that  is  pure  and 
separated  to  the  Lord.  *  Nor  is  it  in  the  way  of  this,  that  not  all  bom 
of  faithful  parents  are  elect,  for  it  is  not  for  us  to  search  into  the  secret 
judgments  of  God  ;  but  we  with  good  reason  suppose  all  born  of  Chris- 
tians probably  elect." 

Gtjertlee.I — "  Many  sprinkled  with  water  both  infants  and  adults, 
do  not  obtain  salvation,  beyond  doubt  because  they  do  not  receive  Bap- 
tism entire,  but  only  its  first  and  most  common  part." 

WiTSius.g — "  Baptism  does  not  signify  nor  seal,  still  less  does  it  con- 
fer on  all  infants  of  those  who  are  in  the  covenant,  any  common  justi- 
fication, regeneration  and  sanctification.  *  *  or  remission  of  original 
sin,  either  a  revocable  or  irrevocable  remission.  But  all  efficacy  of  Bap- 
tism, which  involves  a  state  of  salvation,  even  in  respect  of  their  age,  is 
confined  to  elect  infants  alone  (solis  electis  infantibus  proprium)." 

Leydecker.|| — "  The  faith  demanded  of  parents  in  the  formula  of  Bap- 
tism is  indefinite:  This,  to  wit  that  godly  persons'  infants  are  sanctified  in 
Christ.  And  that  faith  is  true,  although  there  should  be  here  and  there 
an  exception,  .  .  That  divine  promise  has  a  common  truth,  though 
God  reserve  to  himself,  according  to  His  own  power  and  liberty,  the  ex- 
clusi  ,n  of  some  infants.  Faith  .  .  performs  its  office  when  it  lays 
hold  of  the  promise  as  it  is  given,  and  reverently  leaves  to  God  liberty  <f 
application.  The  believer  is  bound  .  .  to  acquiesce  in  the  promise 
given  .  .  and  to  trust  in  it,  or,  in  the  judgment  of  charity  to  hope 
well  concerning  this  infant  which  is  to  be  baptized— nay,  to  believe  that 
tkis  infant  belongs  to  Christ,  unless  God,  by  a  singular  decision,  wills  its 
exclusion.  The  faith  demanded  of  parents  is  not  vain.  .  .  though 
here  and  there  one  (of  the  infants)  does  not  belong  to  the  election.  .  .  . 
although  there  is  not  an  internal  baptizing  of  exactly  all  infants." 

Westminster  Confession  X.  M.  IV.  "  Elect  infants  dying  in  in- 
fancy are  regenerated.  So,  also,  are  all  other  elect  persons.  Others  not 
elected    .     .     .     cannot  be  saved." 

*  Opera,  VII.     48.  f  Institut.  Theolog.  Loc.  XLVII.  29.  %    Institut. 

Theolog.     Amstelod.     1694.     Ch.   XXXIII.    173.  g  De   Effic.    Baptism,  Miso- 

Sac.  II.  622.     ||  De  Veritat.  Fid.  Ref.  siv.  Comm.  in  Catecb.  Palat.  Ultraj.  1694,  p.  327 • 


28  Review  of  Dr.  Hodge's  Systematic   Theology. 

§  17.   RESERVE. 

Hence  logical  Calvinism  speaks  with  reserve  even  of  the  cases 
of  infants,  which  are  most  hopeful.  '•  If  the  infants  of  be- 
lievers die  in  infancy  before  the  years  of  discretion,  we  have 
good  hopes  concerning  them,"  say  the  Swiss  theologians  at 
Dort.*  "  By  the  law  of  charity"  says  Pareus,f  and  so 
through  the  whole.  Millions  of  the  children  of  pagans  and  of 
other  reprobates  are  certainly  lost,  and  some,  if  their  parents 
be  elect,  may  be  saved.  We  reach  again  the  point  to  which  we 
came  before.  Calvinism  has  no  ground  on  which  it  can  affirm 
positively  and  unerringly,  on  its  own  premises,  that  any  one 
particular  child  dying  in  infancy  is  certainly  saved.  In  place 
of  a  distinct  Christian  assurance  based  on  a  positive  cove- 
nant, it  has  assumption  based  on  assumption,  presumption 
built  on  presumption,  hopes  resting  on  hopes,  Charity  con- 
fessing that  ignorance  of  a  terrible  secret  is  its  mother.  The 
worst  position  in  which  a  brighter  faith  can  suppose  a  child  to 
be,  is  the  best  which  Calvinism  can  assign  it. 

§18.     BAPTISM    AND    ANABAPTISM. 

Calvinism  rests  the  validity  of  Baptism  not  on  what  it 
brings,  but  on  what  it  finds : 

Latter  Confession  of  Helvetia.  (1566) — Why  should  not  they 
be  consecrated  by  holy  Baptism,  who  are  God's  peculiar  people,  and  in 
the  Church  of  God  ?J 

Molinaeus.§ — "  The  Baptism  of  water  is  not,  therefore,  absolutely 
necessary  to  the  reconciliation  of  the  infant  and  its  reception  into  grace: 
inasmuch  as  the  reconciliation  precedes  the  Baptism." 

Voetius.||— "The  opinion  of  the  Keformed  theologians  is  known, 
that  the  efficacy  of  Baptism  is  not  in  producing  regeneration,  but  in 
sealing  regeneration  already  produced." 

*  Judicta.  40.  f  Castiga*.  in  qua^uor  Lib.  Bellam.  de  ainisione  gratiae  et. 
Statu  Peccat.  Heidelberg,  1613.  L.  vi.  891.  %  Ch.  xx.  Ed.  Augusti,  72.  Ne- 
meyer,  518.  Beck.  I.  158.  Hall's  Harm,  of  Conf.  302.  g  Quoted  by  Witsius,  M.  S. 
II.  627.  I  Quoted  by  Witsius.     M.  S.  II.  633. 


Baptism    Without   Objective  Force.  29 

Witsius  * — "God  is  not  only  free  to  confer  the  grace  of  regeneration 
on  elect  infants  before  the  use  of  Baptism,  but  it  is  credible  that  He 
ordinarily  does  so."  The  margin  applies  this  "to  those  who  die  in  in- 
fancy," but  the  text  shows  conclusively  that  Witsius  does  not  limit  the 
principle  to  them. 

The  Liturgy  of  the  Church  of  Holland  required  parents,  pre- 
senting their  children  for  Baptism,  to  confess  that  they  "  acknowledged 
them  as  sanctifi'd  in  Christ,  and,  on  that  account,  as  members  of  Ilis 
Church,  to  be  Baptized." 

§19.     GRACE    BEFORE   BAPTISM. 

Grace  in  no  sense  waits  on  Baptism,  but  Baptism  waits  on 
Grace :  Baptism  is  not  a  means  of  Grace,  but  Grace  is  a  means 
of  real  Baptism  ;  in  the  Calvinistic  System  we  are  baptized  not 
in  order  to  obtain  Grace,  but  because  we  are  supposed  already 
to  have  it. 

Calvin. — "They   are  embraced  in  the  covenant  from  the  womb."  O 
"By  what  right  could  we  admit  them  to  Baptism,  except  that  they  are 
heirs  of  the  promise?     For  unless  already  before  it  [jam  ante)  the  prom- 
ise of  life  pertained  to  them,  he  would  profane  Baptism  who  would  give 
it  to  them." 

Martyr. f — "Little  ones,  who  truly  belong  to  this  election,  are  en- 
dowed with  the  Holy  Spirit  before  they  are  baptized."  "  Nor  would  we 
baptize  little  children,  unless  we  supposed  that  they  already  belong  to 
the  Church  and  to  Christ." 

Former  Confession  of  Helvetia  (1530-32). — "  Baptism  is  the  font 
of  regeneration,  the  which  the  Lord   doth  give  to  his  elect  [electis  suis).  • 
In  which  holy  font  we  baptize  our  infants.     Especially  seeing  that  we 
ought  godly  to  presume  of  their  election. "J 

Rivetus.$ — "True  Baptism  requires  that  they  shall  be  in  the  covenant, 
to  whom  it  is  administered." 

Ames. || — "  Unless  they  are  to  be  esteemed  as  members  of  the  Church, 
they  ought  not  to  be  baptized.  For  Baptism  is,  in  its  own  nature,  the 
seal  of  an  ingrafting  already  made  into  Christ,  and,  consequently,  into 
His  Church." 

§20.  BAPTISM  WITHOUT  OBJECTIVE  FORCE. 

According  to  Calvinism,  Baptism  has  no  objective  force 
even  to  elect  infants. 

*  Misc.  Sac.  II.  631.  f  Loc.   Com.  IV.  viii.         J   15  in  Rom.  VI.         \  Art. 

xsi.  Ed.  Augusti,  99,  Ed.  Niemeyer,  112,  120.  Beck,  I.  55.  Hall's  Harmony,  303. 
||  Ad  Genes.  Exerc.  88,  p.  429. 


30  Review  of  Dr.  Hodge's  Systematic  Theology. 

Zurich  Consensus,*  between  Calvin  and  the  Zurich  ministers  1549: 
"  Whatever  good  is  conferred  on  us  by  (the  Sacraments)  is  not  by  their 
own  virtue,  even  though  you  comprehend  in  it  the  promises.  The 
Sacraments  are  called  seals,  but  the  Spirit  alone  is  properly  the  seal." 

Heidelberg  Catechism.!—"  Is  the  outward  Baptism  of  water  that 
washing  away  of  sin?  It  is  not,  for  the  blood  of  Christ  (and  the  Holy 
Ghost)  alone,  purges  us  from  all  sin." 

Bodius,J  arguing  against  the  view  that  children  are  not  members  of 
Christ  before  Baptism,  says  :  "  If  this  opinion  were  true,  it  would  follow 
that  the  children  of  Christians,  no  less  than  of  Turks,  Jews,  and  hea- 
then, should  be  prohibited  from  Baptism  until  they  are  of  a  fitting  age 
to  make  a  profession  of  faith  for  themselves ;  for  there  is  no  reason  why 
the  seal  of  the  covenant  should  be  impressed  on  those  who  have  nothing 
to  do  with  the  covenant  itself." 

WiTSius.g — "Communion  with  Christ,  and  with  His  mystic  body  seems 
to  precede  Baptism  in  elect  infants;  at  least  in  the  judgment  of  charity. 
For  as  an  argument  for  infant  Baptism,  the  orthodox  (Calvinists)  con- 
stantly say :  They  to  whom  belong  the  covenant  of  grace,  the  fellowship 
of  Christ  and  of  the  Church,  and  whose  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  ought 
to  be  baptized.  But  all  these  things  belong  to  elect  and  federate  in- 
fants." 

§21.    DEFINITION   OF   BAPTISM. 

Dr.  Heppe,  in  his  Dogmatic  of  the  Evangelical  Reformed 
Church,  (1861),  presents  the  doctrines  of  the  Calvinistic 
Churches,  and  illustrates  his  text  with  citations  from  their 
standard  theologians. 

The  definitions  of  Baptism  which  Heppe  gives  as  purely  Calvinistic 
and  Beformed,  are  as  follows  :  "  Baptism  is  a  sacrament,  in  which 
those  to  whom  the  covenant  of  God's  grace  pertains,  are  washed  with 
water  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  that  is,  that  to 
those  who  are  baptized,  it  is  signified  and  sealed,  that  they  are  received 
into  the  communion  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  are  inserted  into  Christ, 
and  His  mystic  body,  the  Church,  are  justified  by  God,  for  the  sake  of 
Christ's  blood  shed  for  us,  and  regenerated  by  Christ's  Spirit."  This 
definition  he  gives  from  Polanus.  Another  and  shorter  one  he 
furnishes  from  Wollebius  as  follows :  "  Baptism  is  the  first  sacra- 
ment of  the  new  covenant,  in  which  to  the  elect  received  into  the  family 
of  God,  by  the  outward  application  of  water,  the  remission  of  sins  and 

*  Enerv.  Bellarm.  II.  49.   f  Niemeyer,  Coll.  Conf.    f  Qu.  LXXII.   Augusti,  556. 
Niemeyer,  408,  445.         \  Quoted   by  Wi  sius,    191. 


Baptism  of  Non- Elect  Infants.  31 

regeneration  by  the  hlood  of  Christ  and  by  the  Holy  Spirit  are  sealed." 
He  gives  only  one  other,  which  is  from  Heidegger,  thus  :  Baptism  is 
the  sacrament  of  regeneration,  in  which  to  each  and  to  every  one  embraced 
in  the  covenant  of  (j'od,  the  inioard  washing  from  sins  through  the  blood 
and  Spirit  of  Christ,  is  declared  and  sealed. 

§  22.    BAPTISM   OF    NON-ELECT    INFANTS. 

Calvinism  particularly  gives  prominence  to  the  idea  that 
non-elect  infants  receiving  Baptism,  receive  no  benefit. 

Zurich  Consensus,  between  Calvin  and  the  Zurich  ministers. — "  We 
zealously  teach  that  God  does  not  promiscuously  exercise  His  power  on 
all  who  receive  the  Sacraments,  but  only  on  the  elect.  He  enlightens 
unto  faith  none  but  those  whom  He  has  foreordained  unto  life.  By  the 
secret  power  (arcana  virtu te)  of  His  Spirit,  he  effects  that  the  elect  receive 
those  things  which  the  sacraments  offer."  *  "  To  the  reprobate  equally 
with  the  elect  the  signs  are  administered,  but  the  truth  of  the  signs 
reaches  only  the  latter.11  f 

Zanchius.J — ''The  power  of  Baptism  has  place  in  the  elect  alone. 
They  only  are  baptized,  not  with  water  merely  but  with  the  Spirit  also. 
Though  all  these  things  (enumerated  previously)  are  affirmed  of  Bap- 
tism, and  are  truly  attributed  to  it  as  the  organ  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
all  who  are  baptized  are  truly  said  to  become  and  be  such  Sacramental- 
ly ;  yet  we  believe  that  these  things  are  fulfilled  in  fact,  only  in  the 
elect.  All  are  baptized  with  water,  but  the  e-'ect  only,  with  the  Spirit ; 
all  receive  the  sign,  but  the  elect  only  are  made  partakers  of  the  thing 
signified  and  offered  through  Baptism." 

BuCAN.§— "Incorporation  into  Christ,  and  the  benefits  which  follow  it, 
are  in  no  wise  really  conferred  on  the  reprobate,  though  he  be  baptized 
with  water.  For  God  efficaciously  calls,  justifies,  regenerates,  and  glori- 
fies those  only  whom  He  has  chosen  and  predestinated  to  these  things. 
The  elect,  whether  infants  or  adults,  whether  in  Baptism  or  before  Bap- 
tism, are  equally  incorporated  in  Christ." 

WlTSIUS  j| — '' On  such  Baptism  confers  nothing  truly  good;  it  signi- 
fies or  seals  no  grace,  no  salvation  ;  no  more  than  a  piece  of  wax,  with  a 
beautiful  stamp  on  it,  attached  to  a  blank  sheet  of  paper — or,  if  you 
prefer,  attached  to  a  sheet  so  defiled  with  blots  that  nothing  good  can  be 
written  on  it.  Well  has  Robert,  Bishop  of  Salisbury,  said:  'Sacra- 
ments, as  they  are  seals  of  grace,  and  of  God's  promise,  exert  their  power 
spiritually  in  those  only  who  are  sons  of  the  promise  and  heirs  of  grace."' 

*  Do  Efficao.  B.iptis.  in  Inf.  Misc.  Sac.  II.  725.  f  Niemeyer,  Collect.  Conf.  195. 
%  Opera,  VIII.  516.  £  Iastitutione3  Theol.  Gcnev.  1625.  Loc.  XLVII.  p.  51. 
II  Misccll.  Sacr.  II.  618. 


32  Review  of  Dr.  Hodge's  Systematic  Theology. 

§  23.    INFANTS    OUTSIDE    OF   THE    CHURCH. 

Calvinism  therefore  holds,  that  as  infants  who  are  born  of 
parents  who  are  outside  of  the  Church,  are  not  of  the  Church, 
they  are  not  to  be  baptized. 

Bucan.*  — "  Infants  descended  from  believing  and  baptized  parents 
are  to  be  baptized — but  the  children  of  unbelievers,  who  are  not  in  the 
Church,  and  the  children  of  the  unbaptized,  are  not  to  be  baptized." 
"  Are  not  the  little  ones  of  the  unbelievers,  neglected  by  them,  and 
taken  into  the  care  of  Christians,  to  be  baptized  ?  No,  not  till  they  be- 
come adults     .  .  .  ." 

Westminster  Confession,  XXVIII.  iv. — "The  infants  of  one  or 
BOTH  believing  parents  are  to  be  baptized." 

Larger  Catechism.  (Qu.  166). — "  Baptism  is  not  to  be  adminis- 
tered to  any  that  are  out  of  the  visible  Church  .  .  but  infants  descended 
from  parents,  either,  both,  or  but  one  of  them  professing  faith  in  Christ, 
and  obedience  to  Him,  are     .     .     to  be  baptized." 

§  24.    CALVINISM    AND    ANABAPTISM. 

Hence  Calvinism  narrows  to  the  last  degree  any  real  differ- 
ence between  its  own  views  and  those  of  Anabaptists,  or 
Baptists.  In  stating  the  points  of  controversy  between  Cal- 
vinists  and  Mennonites  and  other  Anabaptists,  the  Calvinist 
divines  constantly  represent  themselves  and  the  Anabaptists 
as  perfectly  agreed,  so  far  as  the  Baptism  of  the  children  of 
unbelievers  is  concerned. 

The  Calvinistic  argument  against  the  Anabaptist  objection 
to  infant  Baptism,  constantly  rests  on  the  theory,  that  infants 
have  a  right  to  Baptism  only  as  they  possess  certain  spiritual 
qualifications.  Where  those  qualifications  are  not  to  be  presumed 
the  Anabaptist  objection  stands,  and  Calvinism  concedes  it. 

Thus  BrjLLiNGER.f — "The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  of  infants.  No 
man  is  received  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  unless  he  be  the  friend  of 
God :  and  these  are  not  destitute  of  the  Spirit  of  God.     Children  are 

*  Institutiones  Theologicse.     Genev.  1625,  624.  |  Sermons  on  the  Sacra- 

ments Cambridgo,  1840,  183. 


Calvinism  and  Anabajrtism.  S3 

God's,  therefore  they  have  the  Spirit  of  God.  Therefore,  if  they  have 
received  the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we ;  if  they  he  accounted  among  the 
people  of  God  as  well  as  we  that  be  grown  of  age,  who  can  forbid  these 
to  be  baptized  with  water  in  the  name  of  the  Lord?  " 

Van  Hoeke.* — "  There  is  no  question  between  us  and  the  Mennonites 
as  to  whether  the  infants  of  unbelievers,  or  of  those  who  are  outside  of 
the  covenant  of  God,  are  to  be  baptized?  For  to  these,  both  WE  and 
they  deny  Baptism.  But  the  question  is,  whether  the  infants  of  iho?e 
who  are  in  the  covenant,  or  one  of  whose  parents  is  in  the  covenant,  are 
to  be  baptized?  " 

The  Confession  of  Scotland  (1560). — "  Baptism  appertaineth  to 
the  infants  of  the  faithful.  And  so  we  condemn  the  error  of  the  Ana- 
baptists."! 

The  Latter  Helvetic  Confession  (Chap.  xx). — "  We  condemn 
the  Anabaptists  who  deny  that  the  new-born  children  of  the  faithful  are 
to  be  baptized.  For  of  these  .  .  is  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  they 
are  in  the  covenant  of  God.  Why,  therefore,  should  not  the  sign  of 
God's  covenant  be  given  them?  Why  shall  not  they  be  initiate!  by 
holy  Baptism,  who  are  God's  own,  and  in  the  Church  of  God?  "  \ 

Confession  of  France  (1559). — "Seeing  that  together  with  the 
parents,  God  doth  account  their  posterity  also  to  be  of  the  Church, 
we  affirm,  that  infants  being  born  of  holy  parents  [Lat.  Sanctis.  Fr. 
fideles],  are     .     .     to  be  baptized.  "  \ 

The  Heidelberg  Catechism  (Qu.  74)  rests  on  the  same  view. — 
"  Young  children  ...  by  Baptism  are  separated  from  the  children  of 
unbelievers."  In  explaining  the  answer  Ursinus  ||  says  :  "  All  they,  and 
they  alone  are  to  be  baptized,  who  are  disciples  of  Christ,  that  is,  who  are, 
and  who  ought  to  be  considered  members  of  the  visible  Church,  whether 
they  be  adults  professing  faith  and  repentance,  or  be  infants  born  in  the 
Church  :  for  all  the  children  of  the  faithful  are  in  the  covenant,  and  in 
the  Church  of  God,  unless  they  exclude  themselves.  Hence,  also,  they 
are  disciples  of  Christ,  because  they  are  born  iu  the  Church,  which  is 
the  school  of  Christ." 

The  Confession  of  Belgia  (1566). — "We  do  detest  the  error  of 
the  Anabaptists,  who  .  .  do  also  condemn  the  Baptism  of  infants,  yea, 
of  those  that  be  born  of faithful parents."\ 

The  Canons  of  the  Synod  of  Dort  (Art.  I.  xvii.). — "Inasmuch 
as  we  are  to  judge  of  the  will  of  God  from  His  Word,  which  testifies  that 
the  children  of  the  faithful  are  holy,  not  indeed  by  nature,   but  by  the 

*  Lucubrationes  id  Cateches.  Palat.  Lugduni  1711,  p.  310.  f  Art.  XXIII.  E<1. 
Augusti,  166.  Niemeyer,  354.  Hall's  Harm,  of  Conf.  297.  %  Ed.  Augusti,  72. 
Niemeyer,  518.  £  Art.  xxxv.  Ed.  Augusti,  123.  Niemeyer,  325,  338.  Hall's  Harm. 
Conf.  307.  ||  Corpus  Doctrinae,  1612,  441.  \  Art.  xxxvi.  Ed.  Augusti,  193. 
Niemeyer,  3S4.  Beck,  I.  326.  Hall's  Harm,  of  Conf.  308. 


34        A  Review  of  Dr.  Hodge's  Systematic  Theology. 

benefit  of  the  gracious  covenant  in  which  they  are  comprehended  with 
their  parents ;  godly  parents  ought  not  to  doubt  of  the  election  and  sal- 
vation of  their  children,  whom  God  calls  out  of  this  life  in  their  in- 
fancy." 

Dickson  (Professor  of  Divinity  in  the  University  of  Edinburgh)  d. 
1662  — "  Do  not  the  Anabaptists  err,  who  maintain,  That  no  infants, 
though  born  of  believing  parents  ought  to  be  baptized?    Yes, 
To  some  infants  of  believers,  as  well  as  to  others  come  to  age,  the  Spirit 
of  Christ  hath  been  given."  * 

In  regard  to  the  overwhelming  majority  of  the  children  not 
only  of  the  race,  but  of  nominal  Christendom,  Calvinism  holds, 
therefore,  that  they  are  not  proper  subjects  of  Baptism,  and 
so  far  concedes  much  to  the  Anabaptists  practically,  and  in 
regard  to  each  particular  case  of  those  to  whom  it  grants  Bap- 
tism, concedes  that  it  cannot  prove,  that  before  God  this  Bap- 
tism is  valid,  or  that  it  is  attended  with  any  value  whatever. 
Calvinism  grants,  that  it  does  not  know,  in  any  one  case,  that  the 
Baptism  of  an  infant  is  more  than  a  form,  and  grants  that  in 
no  case  does  Baptism,  even  as  an  ordinary  means,  condition  or 
bear  upon  the  salvation  of  a  child.  What  more  could  it  grant 
to  Anabaptism  without  granting  everything  ? 

§  25.  CHILDREN  OP  UNBELIEVERS — REPROBATE  INPANTS. 

Calvinism  not  only  excludes  the  children  of  unbelievers  from 
Baptism,  but  excludes  them  as  a  body  from  salvation. 

Calvin.| — "  When  the  Lord  rejects  him  (the  godless  man)  with  his 
offspring,  there  is  certainly  no  expostulation  which  we  can  make  with 
God.  ...  If  He  therefore  rejects  any  one,  is  it  not  of  necessity  that 
such  an  one's  seed  should  also  be  accursed  ?  .  .  This  therefore  is  to  be 
held  for  certain,  that  all  who  are  deprived  of  the  grace  of  God,  are  in- 
cluded under  the  sentence  of  eternal  death,  whence  it  follows,  that  the 
children  of  the  reprobate,  whom  the  curse  of  God  follows,  are  subject  to  the 
y      same  sentence.'' 

The  Bremen  Theologians  at  Dort.J — "  Believers'  infants  alone, 

*  Truth's  Victory.     Glasgow,  1772,  p.  253.        f  0n  Isaiah  xiv.  21,  Opera,  III. 
JActaSynoL     Dordr.  Judio.  63.  , 

ouJ&  (Uutt™uw™    ... ;  ^ 


The  Secret  Impediment.  35 

who  die  before  they  reach  the  age  in  which  they  can  receive  instruction, 
do  we  suppose,  to  be  loved  of  God,  and  saved,  of  His  .  .  good  pleasure." 

The  Three  Belgic  Professors,  Polyander,  Thyseus,  and  Walseus, 
at  Dorfc.* — "Infants  born  of  parents  not  in  the  covenant,  tbe  Scripture  pro- 
nounces impure  and  aliens  from  the  covenant  of  grace." 

Sibrand  Lubbert,  at  the  same  Synod,  gives  his  decision  in  these 
words. — "  There  is  an  election  of  infants,  there  is  a  reprobation  of  in- 
fants ...  To  the  infants  of  the  Church  belongs  the  promise  .  . 
To  the  others  (infants),  who  are  out  of  the  Church,  no  promise  is  made." 
To  this  judgment  the  three  Belgic  Professors  attach  their  names  as  ap- 
provers f 

Francis  Gomar,  at  the  same  Synod,  treating  of  "  the  Special  Eepro- 
bation  of  men  to  damnation,"  lays  down,  as  false,  the  thesis  that  "no 
one  is  reprobated,  no  one  is  damned,  on  account  of  original  sin  alone  : 
consequently  there  is  no  reprobation  of  infants."  To  this  Gomarus 
replies:  "On  account  of  original  sin  alone,  there  is  also  damnation, 
which  is  the  wages  of  every  sin,  even  of  sin  which  is  not  actual.  There- 
fore also  the  infants  unregenerate,  the  infants  of  unbelievers,  who  are 
aliens  from  the  covenant  of  God,  are  by  nature  children  of  wrath,  with- 
out Christ,  without  hope,  without  God,  as  also  the  infants  of  the  world 
of  the  ungodly,  in  the  flood,  and  the  infants  of  the  impious  Sodomites, 
in  the  burning,  perished,  and  were  justly  subjected  to  the  wrath  of  God 
with  their  parents." 

Marckius.J — "Nor  is  it  to  be  doubted  that  among  these  reprobated 
are  to  be  referred  .  .  the  infants  of  unbelievers.  For  though  of  individual 
persons  .  .  of  infants  born  of  unbelievers,  we  cannot  and  do  not  wish 
particularly  to  determine,  because  of  God's  liberty,  and  the  of  en  secret 
ways  of  His  Spirit,  yet  all  these  are  by  nature  children  of  wrath,  impure, 
alien,  and  remote  from  God,  without  hope,  and  left  to  themselves.  God 
has  revealed  nothing  as  decreed  or  to  be  done  for  their  salvation,  and 
they  are  destitute  of  the  ordinary  means  of  grace.  So  that  we  ought 
utterly  to  reject,  not  only  their  salvation  of  which  Pelagians  dream,  but 
also  the  Remonstrant  (Arminian)  theory  that  their  penalty  is  one  of  priva- 
tion, without  sensation.  The  terminus  to  which  these  are  predestined  is 
eternal  death,  destruction,  damnation.  Hence  it  is  fitting  to  style  this  the 
end  or  terminus,  alike  of  the  reprobation  and  of  the  creation  in  time,  of 
the  reprobate." 

§  26.    THE    SECRET    IMPEDIMENT. 
The   Calvinistic   system   holds  that  there  is  a  secret  impedi- 
ment to  the  grace  of  Baptism,  in  the  case  of  non-elect  infants. 

*  Acta  Syn.  Dordr.  10.  f  Do.  20.  %  Comp.  Theol.  Christiana;.  Amste:ced. 
1722,  VII.  xxxiii.  xxxiv. 


36  Review  of  Dr.  Hodge's   Systematic  Theology. 

Musculus.* — "  There  are  impediments  which  prohibit  the  grace  of 
Baptism  from  having  place.  They  are  of  two  kinds :  one  secret,  the 
other  open.  The  secret  impediment  is,  if  any  one  belong  not  to  the 
number  of  the  elect,  but  is  of  the  reprobate,  this  impediment  forever  pre- 
vents participation  of  the  grace  of  Christ." 

Hence  the  Baptism  of  elect,  and  of  reprobate  infants,  is 
made  indiscriminate  to  keep  the  secret  from  us. 

MuscuLUS.f — "In  the  Church  of  Christ  it  cannot  be  observed 
that  only  the  elect  should  be  baptized.  It  is  as  in  the  Old 
Testament,  in  which  God  Himself  so  instituted  the  initial  sacra- 
ment, as  unwilling  that  in  its  administration  a  discrimination  should 
be  made  by  human  presumption  between  the  elect  and  the  repro- 
bate. Nay,  He  hath  so  preserved  to  Himself  the  knowledge  of  this  dis- 
crimination that  He  commanded  the  sacrament  of  His  grace  to  be  admin- 
istered to  all  infants,  the  reprobate  as  well  as  the  elect,  to  Esau,  whom 
He  hated  in  his  mother's  womb,  as  well  as  to  Jacob,  whom  He  loved 
before  he  was  born." 

§  27.    NON-ELECT   INFANTS   HAVE    NO    RIGHT    TO    BAPTISM. 
Hence  non-elect  infants  have  not  strictly  a  right  to  be  baptized, 
and  if  they  could  be  known  it  would  be  wrong  to  baptize  them. 

Calvin.  J — "  God,  by  the  secret  grace  of  His  Spirit,  causes  that  they 
(sacraments)  shall  not  be  without  effect  in  the  ehct.  To  the  reprobate 
they  are  merely  dead  and  useless  figures."    vl/^A*^-^ 

Gryn^eus. — "  They  who  have  been  baptized  with  water  only,  not 
also  with  the  Holy  Spirit  and  fire,  ought  to  be  regarded  as  not  bap- 
tized:' 

Zanchius.^— "In  the  Confession  of  the  Church  of  Strasbourg,  1539, 
in  Article  XVIIL,  the  preachers  are  admonished,  that  they  baptize  no 
one,  except  this  sentence  be  either  expressed  or  understood :  '  I  baptize 
this  person,  0  God,  in  accordance  with  Thy  election,  and  the  purpose  of 
Thy  Will.' " 

Witsius.||—  "  If  the  most  strict  right  of  Baptism  be  considered,  it 
belongs  only  to  the  elect  in  the  verity  of  the  thing,  and  in  the  judgment 
of  God,  which  is  ever  in  conformity  with  the  truth.  For  inasmuch  as 
Baptism  is  a  sign  and  seal  of  that  covenant  in  which  He  makes  over  to 
those  who  are  in  His  covenant,  the  goods  of  saving  grace,  which  have 

*  Loci  Communes.  Basilioe.  1599,  336.  f  Loci.  J  On  Rom.  IV.  11.  Opera, 
VII.         §  Opera,  vii.  286.      |j  Do  efficac.  Baptismi  in  infantib.  Misc.  Saor.  II.  617. 


Calvinism  against  Anabaptism.  37 

also  a  sure  connection  with  eternal  life,  it  follows  that  they  who  have  no 
right  to  the  goods  of  the  covenant,  and  never  are  to  have  any,  have  no 
right  hefore  the  tribunal  of  God  to  the  seal  of  the  covenant.  The 
administrators  of  sacred  things,  who  are  to  act  in  the  individual  cases, 
from  the  sole  judgment  of  charity,  know  not  to  distinguish  the  elect  from 
the  non-elect ;  and  thus  far  sin  not,  if  also  perchance  they  confer  baptism 
on  those  to  whom  in  strict  right  it  is  not  due." 

Gerdes* — "  The  legitimate  subjects  of  baptism  are  the  elect  and  be- 
lieving alone,  since  the  good  things  of  the  covenant  can  be  sealed  to 
those  only  for  whom  they  are  designed,  and  to  whom  they  actually  come." 

It  is  evident,  then,  that  on  the  Calvinistic  hypothesis,  in 
Baptism  the  great  name  of  the  adorable  Trinity  is  invoked 
upon  what  is  always  uncertain  and  sometimes  false.  Zanchius, 
to  avoid  so  shocking  a  possibility,  favored  the  idea  that  infants 
should  always  be  baptized  conditionally,  the  condition  expressed 
or  implied  in  Baptism  being  that  it  was  according  to  the  elec- 
tion and  purpose  of  God.f 

§  28.    CALVINISM   WITHOUT   A   LOGICAL   ARGUMENT    AGAINST 

ANABAPTISM. 

Calvinism  has  therefore  no  logical  ground  against  the  Ana- 
baptist  rejection  of  infant  Baptism. 

Calvin  J — "  If  an  Anabaptist  were  disputing  with  you,  I  think  no 
other  defence  would  avail  you,  than  this,  that  they,  with  justice  are  re- 
ceived to  Baptism  whom  God  has  adopted  before  they  were  bom,  and  to 
whom  He  has  promised  to  be  a  Father.  For  unless  God  transmit  His 
grace  from  fathers  to  sons,  to  receive  new-born  infants  into  the  Church 
would  be  a  mere  profanation  of  Baptism." 

Beza.| — "  No  one  is  to  be  adorned  with  the  symbol  of  the  family  o  f 
the  Lord,  except  we  suppose  that  he  is  probably  to  be  counted  in  that 
family." 

Tremellius  and  Beza's  New  Testament. || — "Children  of  believers 
are  indeed,  by  virtue  of  the  covenant,  holy  before  Baptism,  but  Baptism 
comes  in,  as  it  were,  a  seal  of  holiness." 

*  Doctrina  Gratioe.  Duisburg.  1744,  342.  f  Quot.  in  Limborch  Th.  Chr. 
III.  V.,  probably  tbo  passage  we  have  quoted  :  Opera,  vii.  286.  J  Contra  West- 
pbal.  p.  792.  Col.  2.  §  Vol.  I  ad  defens  et  Respons  CastillibniF,  502.  ||  On  I 
Cor.  VII.  14. 


>  V  W*  i'siyi  ib% 


38  Review  of  Dr.  Hodge's  Systematic  Theology. 

Clauburg.* — "The  principle  is  constantly  to  be  maintained,  that 
Baptism  does  not  confer  on  infants  the  becoming  sons  and  heirs  of  God  ; 
but  because  they  are  already  esteemed  in  that  place  and  in  that  rank, 
before  God,  the  grace  of  adoption  is  sealed  in  their  flesh  by  Baptism. 
Otherwise  the  Anabaptists  would  rightly  forbid  their  Baptism.  Unless  the 
verity  of  the  outward  sign  belongs  to  them,  to  call  them  to  a  participa- 
tion of  the  sign  itself  would  be  a  mere  profanation." 

BuRMANN'.f — "The  power  of  sacraments  is  not  to  effect  and  produce  a 
thing,  but  to  signify  and  seal  it."  "  God  is  wont  to  bestow  His  grace 
before  the  sacraments  are  received — of  which  grace,  when  they 
are  received,  they  are  but  the  signs  and  tokens." 

To  the  Anabaptists  the  Calvinist  says :  We  agree  with  you 
that  the  great  mass  of  infants  are  not  entitled  to  Baptism;  we 
agree  with  you  that  Baptism  in  no  case  confers  anything  ob- 
jective on  the  child ;  the  only  question  between  us  is,  whether 
the  hypothetical  sign  of  a  hypothetical  condition  shall  be  given 
them  ?  As  God,  according  to  the  illustration  of  Witsius,  some- 
times sets  his  seal  to  blank  paper,  or  paper  so  scribbled  upon 
that  nothing  intelligible  can  be  written  upon  it,  and  hides  from 
us  all  of  the  paper  except  the  place  of  the  seal,  and  as  the 
value  of  the  seal  as  a  seal  all  turns  upon  the  contents  of  the 
paper,  a  Calvinistic  seal  amounts  to  little  more  than  an  en- 
graver's specimen  ;  and,  inasmuch  as  the  paper  with  the  true 
covenant  written  on  it,  is  just  as  valid,  according  to  Calvinism, 
without  the  seal  as  with  it,  the  seal  seems  to  be  of  very  little 
account  in  any  case.  Baptism  is  no  more  than  a  seal  at  most ; 
the  seal  of  empty  or  blotted  paper,  in  many  cases  ;  the  seal, 
at  best,  of  a  covenant,  to  whose  force  it  contributes  nothing  ;  a 
covenant  which  in  no  sense  is  made  by  it ;  a  covenant  which 
stands  in  equal  force  without  it.  It  is  hardly  worth  while  for 
Calvinism,  on  such  a  basis,  to  hold  out  against  Anabaptism. 
It  is  therefore  not  without  internal  reason  that  the  Calvinistic 
tendency  so  often  ran  out,  originally  into   Anabaptism,  that  it 

*  Quoted  by  Witsius.    Mis.  Sac.  II.  633.        f  Bjnops  VII.  IV.  XXVIII. 


The  Means  of  Grace  in  their  Relation  to  Infants.       39 

became  a  proverb,  "a  young  Calvinist,  an  old  Anabaptist;" 
that  the  Anabaptist  theories  so  largely  prevail  on  Calvinistic 
soils ;  that  the  immense  growth  of  the  Baptist  Church  in 
modern  times  has  taken  place  where  Calvinism  has  been  in  the 
ascendant ;  that  so  many  Calvinists  have  become  Baptists  ;  that 
so  many  Baptists  are  Calvinists,  and  that  in  the  Calvinistic 
churches  there  is  so  great  and  growing  a  neglect  of  infant  Bap- 
tism. 

§  29.    THE   MEANS    OF    GRACE   IN   THEIR   RELATION  TO  INFANTS. 

Calvinism  acknowledges  that  there  are  no  ordinary  means 
for  the  salvation  of  infants. 

Westminster  Confession  XIV.  1 :  "  The  grace  of  faith  ...  is 
ordinarily  wrought  by  the  ministry  of  the  Word :  by  which  also,  and  by 
the  administration  of  the  sacraments  and  prayer,  it  is  increased  and 
strengthened."  Here  it  is  implied  that  the  Word,  read  or  heard,  is  the 
sole  means  by  which  grace  is  ordinarily  wrought. 

Calvinism  allows  of  no  potency  of  the  Word  except  a  didactic  one 
(XIV.  2)  :  the  sacraments  "  and  prayer"  increase  faith  but  they  do  not 
produce  it. 

There  is,  then,  no  ordinary  means  for  working  that  faith  in 
infants,  without  which  grace  of  faith  it  is  acknowledged  by 
Calvinists  they  cannot  be  saved.  All  infants'  salvation  comes, 
therefore,  into  the  sphere  of  the  extraordinary,  is  without 
means,  and  requires  unmediated  divine  operations. 

The  position  of  children  an  after-thought.  This  is 
largely  connected  with  and  solved  by  the  more  general  fact, 
that  Calvinism  makes  no  proper  position  for  infants  in  its  sys- 
tem, but  brings  them  in  by  after-thought. 

Westminster  Confession,  XXV.  2 :  "  The  visible  Church  .  .  . 
consists  of  all  those  throughout  the  world  that  profess  the  true  religion, 
together  with  their  children." 

This  seems  to  assert  that  children  of  professors  are  ipso  facto 


40  Revieiv  of  Dr.  Hodges  Systematic  Theology. 

members  of  the  visible  Church — and  this  the  Calvinistic  theo- 
logians constantly  maintain.  Profession  of  the  true  religion 
puts  one  set  of  its  members  into  the  visible  Church — natural 
birth  of  these  professors  puts  another  set  into  it — but  no  unre- 
generate  human  being  is  introduced  by  God  into  His  visibl 
Church — the  sower  of  the  tares  is  always  the  devil.  Those 
who  are  in  the  visible  Church  in  real  conformity  with  God's 
appointment  are  also  ipso  facto  part  of  the  invisible  Church. 
But  in  Calvinism  the  law  of  natural  descent  sows  tares  continu- 
ally in  the  visible  Church,  bringing  into  it  non-elect  children, 
the  children  of  unworthy  professors  as  a  class,  and  often  the 
children  of  the  elect  themselves,  non-elect  children  of  the  elect. 

Westminster  Confession  XXVIII.  1 :    "  Baptism  is     .    .    . 
ordained    ...     for  the  solemn  admission  of  the  party  baptized  in'o 
the  visible   Church." 

The  contradiction  here  seems  palpable.  The  Confession 
XXV.  2,  asserts  that  the  Church  consists,  in  part,  of  the  chil- 
dren of  professors,  and  again  asserts,  XXVIII.  1,  that  Bap- 
tism solemnly  admits  them  into  the  visible  Church — that  is, 
the  Church  in  part  consists  of  those  who  have  not  been 
admitted  into  it — and  those  are  admitted  into  it  of  whom  it 
already  consists — or  are  there  two  admissions,  one  solemn,  the 
other  not  solemn  ?  The  conflict  is  too  palpable  to  have  escaped 
the  notice  of  Calvinistic  divines.  Boston  *  quoted  and  en- 
dorsed by  Dr.  Shaw  f  harmonizes  the  two  thus  :  Baptism  "  does 
not  make  them  members  of  the  visible  Church,  but  admits  them 
solemnly  thereto  .  .  for  the  infants  of  believing  parents 
.  .  are  Christians  and  visible  Church  members " — that  is 
after  the  Church  consists  of  them,  after  they  are  Christians 
and  after  they  are  members,  they  are  solemnly  admitted  to  the 

*  Complete  Body  of  Divinity,  III.  307.  f  Exposition  of  the  Confession,  7th 

Ed.  Edinburgh. 


The  Means  of  Grace  in  their  Relation  to  Infants.         41 

Church.  The  real  solution  seems  to  us  to  be  this,  that  infants 
were  not  thought  of  at  this  point.  The  writer  had  adults  alone 
in  his  eye.  But  this  belief,  if  it  be  accepted,  confirms  our 
view,  that  infants  are  with  difficulty  brought  into  the  Calvin- 
istic  system — as  indeed  they  are  into  any  system  which  on  the 
one  side  denies  Pelagianism  and  on  the  other  the  objective 
force  of  Baptism.  It  shows  that  baptism  in  the  case 
of  infants,  and  in  that  of  adults  rests  on  exactly  opposite  con- 
structions :  You  baptize  adults  because  Baptism  admits  them 
to  the  Church  ;  you  baptize  infants  because  they  are  already 
in  the  Church. 

"  It  tends  greatly,"  says  Cunningham,  "  to  introduce  obscurity  and 
confusion  into  our  whole  conceptions  upon  the  subject  of  Baptism,  that 
we  see  it  ordinarily  administered  to  infants,  and  very  seldom  to  adults. 
This  leads  us  inse.isibly  to  form  very  defective  and  erroneous  concep- 
tions of  its  design  and  effect,  or  rather  to  live  with  our  minds  very  much 
in  the  state  of  blanks,  so  far  as  concerns  any  distinct  and  definite  views 
upon  the  subject.  There  is  a  difficulty  felt  .  .  in  laying  down  any 
very  distinct  and  definite  doctrine  as  to  the  precise  bearing  and  efficacy 
of  Baptism  in  the  case  of  infants,  to  whom  alone  ordinarily  we  see  it  ad- 
mi  uistered.  And  hence  it  becomes  practically,  as  well  as  theoretically 
important  to  remember,  that  Ave  ought  to  form  our  primary  and  funda- 
mental conceptions  of  Baptism  from  the  Baptism  of  adults  .  .  .  .  It  is 
manifest,  that  the  general  doctrine  or  theory  with  respect  to  the  design 
and  effect  of  Baptism,  .  .  must  undergo  some  modification  in  its  applica- 
cation  to  the  case  of  infants.  One  fundamental  position  concerning  the 
sacraments  is,  that  they  are  intended  for  believers,  and,  of  course,  for 
believers  only,  unless  some  special  exceptional  case  can  be  made  out,  as  we 
are  persuaded  can  be  done  in  the  case  of  infants  of  believers."  "  Bap- 
tism is  described  in  our  Confession  (XXVIII.  1),  as  '  ordained  .  .  to  be 
unto  him  a  sign  and  seal '  .  .  It  applies  primarily  and  fully  only  to  the 
case  of  adult  Baptism."  "The  fundamental,  spiritual  blessings  on 
which  the  salvation  of  man  universally  depends,— justification  and  re- 
generation by  faith — are  not  conveyed  through  the  instrumentality  of 
the  sacraments,  but  .  .  on  the  contrary,  they  must  already  exist  before 
even  Baptism  can  be  lawfully  or  safely  received."  * 

Dr.  Cunningham,  was  not  unconscious  of  the  nature  of  the  ground  on 

*  (See  Cunningham  ;  Histor.  Theology,  1864.  II.  25,  127,  144). 


42  Review  of  Dr.  Hodge's  Systematic  Theology. 

which  he  was  treading,  and  acknowledges,  to  meet  the  fact,  that  "  these 
statements  may,  at  first  view,  appear  to  be  large  concessions  to  those 
who  oppose  the  lawfulness  of  the  Baptism  of  infants."  * 

Westminster  Confession  VIII.  8  :  "To  all  those  for  whom  Christ 
hath  purchased  redemption,  He  doth  certainly  and  effectually  apply 
and  communicate  the  same  ;  .  .  .  revealing  unto  them,  in  and  by 
the  Word,  the  mysteries  of  salvation  ;  effectually  persuading  them  .  . 
to  believe  and  obey  ;  and  governing  their  hearts  by  this  Word."     .     . 

Here  in  spite  of  the  sweeping  "all,"  there  is  no  considera- 
tion of  children  whatever. 

Westminster  Confession  X.  1 :  "  All  those  whom  God  hath  pre- 
destinated unto  life  .  .  He  is  pleased,  .  .  to  call  by  His  Word  and 
Spirit  .  .  enlightening  their  minds  spiritually  and  savingly  to  under- 
stand the  things  of  God." 

Here  again,  in  spite  of  the  sweeping  "  all,"  infants  are  not 
embraced. 

Calvinism  holds,  that  elect  infants  are  justified  infants  ;  and  yet  de- 
fines justification  so  as  to  make  it  impossible  to  infants.  Westminster 
Confession  XI.  1 :  "  Those  whom  God  effectually  calleth  He  also  freely 
justifieth."  (Do.  vi.)  "  God  did  from  all  eternity  decree  to  justify  all 
the  elect.  Nevertheless,  they  are  not  justified  until  the  Holy  Spirit  doth 
in  due  time  actually  apply  Christ  unto  them." 

Elect  infants  may  be  in  any  case  justified  while  they  are 
infants  :  they  must  be  justified  while  they  are  infants  if  they 
die  in  infancy.  So  Calvinism  allows.  But  the  whole  confess- 
ional conception  of  justification  is  one  which  excludes  infants. 

"  They  (the  justified)  receiving  and  resting  on  him  .  .  by  faith 
.  .  .  Faith  thus  receiving  .  .  is  the  alone  instrument  of  justi. 
fication." 

The  Calvinistic  answer  is  that  adults  are  spoken  of,  but  the 
answer  is  the  accusation.  The  accusation  is  that  the  concep- 
tion is  one  which  embraces  none  but  adults,  and  that  conception 
alone  is  constantly  presented. 

*  (See  Cunningham;  Histor.  Theology,  1864.     II.  25,  127,  144). 


Calvinistic  Doctrine  on  Infant  Salvation.  43 

Calvinism  maintains  not  only  the  possibility,  but  the  abso- 
lute necessity  of  the  regeneration  of  infants,  but  knows  of  no 
means  for  that  regeneration  and  no  assurance  of  faith  that  any 
particular  child  is  regenerate.  "  Elect  infants,  dying  in  in- 
fancy are  regenerated^  (Westminster  Confession  x.  x.)  but  the 
conception  of  regeneration  as  presented  in  the  Confession 
makes  it  inapplicable  to  infants. 

§  30.  CALVINISTIC   DOCTRINE  OF  THE   CHURCH  IN   ITS   BEARING 

ON  INFANT   SALVATION. 

Calvinism  holds  that  out  of  the  invisible  Church  there  is  no 
salvation  whatever,  and  that  out  of  the  visible  Church  there  is 
no  ordinary  possibility  of  salvation. 

Martyr.* — "  It  is  necessary  that  they  (children)  belong  unto  Christ 
and  the  Church,  seeing,  out  of  it,  there  is  no  salvation." 

URSlNUS.f — "  It  is  required,  of  necessity,  that  in  this  life  they  (the 
elect)  be  brought  unto  the  Church,  though  it  be  sometimes  even  at  the 
very  point  of  death."  "  No  man  can  be  saved  out  of  the  Church. 
Whomsoever  God  hath  chosen  and  elected  to  the  end,  which  is  eternal 
life,  them  hath  He  chosen  to  the  means  ;  which  is  the  inward  and  out- 
ward calling." 

Vossius.J — "  Nor  do  we  exclude  the  children  of  unbelievers  alone, 
but  the  children  of  those  who  are  open  heretics :  to  whom  Baptism 
should  be  refused  even  though  it  be  asked  by  the  parents." 

Westminster  Confession  X.  4. — "  Others  not  elected  .  .  cannot 
be  saved  :  much  less  can  men  not  professing  the  Christian  religion  be 
saved  in  any  other  way  whatever  .  .  and  to  assert  .  .  .  that 
they  may,  is  very  pernicious,  and  to  be  detested."  Larger  Catechism, 
Q.  60 :  "  They  who,  having  never  heard  the  Gospel,  know  not  Jesus 
Christ  and  believe  not  in  Him,  cannot  be  saved.  Christ  is  the  Saviour 
only  of  His  body,  the  Church."  Q.  61 :  "  They  only  (are  saved)  who 
are  true  members  of  the  Church  invisible." 

Westminster  Confession  XXV.  1. — "  The  .  .  church  .  .  invisible 
consists  of  the  whole  number  of  the  elect."  (Do.  ii.)— "The  visible 
Church  .  .  is  the  kingdom  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  house  and 
family  of  God,  out  of  which  there  is  no  ordinary  possibility  of  salva- 
tion." 

*  Common  Places.  f  Sum  of  Christian  Religion,  Lond.  1633,  359,  352.  Corpus 
Doctrinae,  1612.    350,  361,  362.        %  De  Baptism.  Di  p.  it.  p.  190. 


44  Review  of  Dr.  Hodge's  Systematic  Theology. 

These  principles  in  their  connections, 

1.  Clearly  exclude  the  entire  heathen,  Mohammedan  and 
Jewish  world  from  salvation.  It  is  a  Calvinistic  article  of 
faith  that  men  not  professing  the  Christian  faith  cannot  be 
saved. 

2.  Connecting  with  this  the  doctrine  that  as  is  the  state  of 
the  parents  so  is  the  presumed  state  of  the  children  individual- 
ly, and  the  certain  state  of  the  children  as  a  class,  it  follows 
that  the  moral  presumption  is  that  each  child  of  the  non- Chris- 
tian world  is  lost,  and  the  moral  certainty  is  that  they  are  lost 
as  a  class.  It  is  certain  that  not  one  of  them  is  of  the  visible 
church,  "  out  of  which  there  is  no  ordinary  possibility  of  sal- 
vation," and  there  is  no  evidence,  no  reason  even,  for  hope 
that  a  single  one  of  them  is  of  the  Church  invisible. 

3.  This  looks  gloomy  enough,  but  there  is  still  another 
dark  point.  "  The  visible  Church  .  .  consists  of  all  those 
that  profess  the  true  religion  (Westminster  Confession  XXVI. 
i.)  "  The  True  Religion,"  what  is  that?  Strictly  construed, 
Calvinism — which  claims — and  must  for  consistency's  sake  claim 
to  be  "  the  true  religion."  Confessions  are  meant  to  define 
"  the  true  religion,"  in  the  sense  in  which  those  who  make  and 
adhere  to  them  define  "the  true  religion."  We  understand 
the  Westminster  Confession  to  furnish  the  Presbyterian  answer 
to  the  question,  What  is  the  true  religion  ?  Does  this  then 
mean  to  exclude  a  large  part  of  the  children  of  nominal  Christ- 
endom, as  it  does  their  parents,  from  the  visible  Church,  from 
all  presumption  of  election,  and  all  probability  of  salvation  ? 
We  are  afraid  that  it  does.  It  has  never  been  so  logically 
pressed  as  to  exclude  from  hope  all  that  are  not  professed  Cal- 
vinists,  but  it  has  been  pressed  to  the  exclusion  of  Papists, 
Arminians,  and  the  various  bodies  of  nominally  Christian 
errorists.     "  The  true  religion  "  seems  to  be  synonymous  with 


Calvinistic  Doctrine   on  Infant  Salvation.  45 

■what  is  called,  XXIV.  iii.,  "  the  true  reformed  religion,"  by 
which  is  meant  in  the  Westminster  Confession,  as  the  usa^e 
and  controversies  of  the  time  will  show,  the  Calvinistic  religion, 
as  over  against  Romanism,  Lutheranism,  and  the  then  domi- 
nant doctrinal  tendency  of  the  Church  of  England.  It  is  there 
said  :  "  It  is  the  duty  of  Christians  to  marry  only  in  the  Lord. 
And  therefore  such  as  profess  the  true  Reformed  religion  should 
not  marry  with  infidels,  papists,  or  other  idolaters.'' 

"  Christians  "  and  "such  as  profess  the  Reformed  religion ." 
are  one  and  the  same  thing :  the  inference  rests  on  the  assump- 
tion of  their  identity.  "  Papists  "  are  not  "  Christians,"  but 
are  idolaters,"  lumped  with  the  "  other  idolaters  " — the  major 
part  of  nominal  Christendom  being  carried  over  to  the  general 
realm  of  Juggernaut  and  Mumbo  Jumbo. 

The  same  paragraph  further  forbids  marrying  "  with  such 
as  .  .  maintain  damnable  heresies,"  and  of  such  Christen- 
dom unhappily  holds  not  a  few.  As  are  the  parents,  so  are 
the  children  to  be  presumed  to  be ;  wrong-minded  Christendom 
is  out  of  the  Church  visible  and  invisible,  so  are  their  children 
as  a  class,  and  as  a  class  presumed  to  be  lost.  All  Pagandom, 
all  Islam,  all  the  Jews,  Roman  Christendom,  Greek  Christen- 
dom (by  parity  of  reason),  and  a  large  part  of  the  Protestant 
world,  under  the  Calvinistic  construction,  moving  out  of  the 
ordinary  possibility  of  salvation,  the  children  doomed  as  a  class, 
without  the  probability,  not  to  say  certainty  of  the  salvation  of 
a  single  one  !  Surely  this  is  a  sufficiently  liberal  provision  for 
damnation,  but  is  it  not  open  to  the  charge  of  being  rather  a 
parsimonious  one  for  salvation? 

§  31.    CALVINISM  AND  ROMANISM  ON  INFANT   SALVATION. 

In  the  controversies  between  Calvinists  and   Romanists,  the 
attitude  of  the  former  on  the  question  of  infant  damnation  is 


46  Review  of  Br.  Hodge  s  Systematic  Theology. 

decisive,  if  there  were  nothing  else,  on  the  question  in  which 
Dr.  Hodge  considers  that  we  have  made  an  assertion  without 
due  warrant.  The  Romanists  assert  that  there  is  a  Limbus 
infantum,  a  place  in  the  other  world  in  which  the  souls  of  un- 
baptized  infants  endure  the  penalty  of  loss  (damni),  but  not  of 
positive  suffering  (sensus).  To  this  the  attitude  of  the  classic 
Calvinistic  divines  is  invariable.  It  is  1 :  that  elect  infants 
are  saved,  though  unbaptized.  2 :  that  non-elect  infants, 
whether  baptized  or  not,  enter  not  upon  a  Limbus  of  loss — a 
negative  damnation,  but  on  a  hell  of  suffering,  a  positive  and 
eternal  damnation.  3  :  They  charge  it  upon  Rome  as  a  Pela- 
gian error,  that  she  softens  unduly  the  state  of  lost  infants. 

Calvin  and  Pighius. — One  of  Calvin's  most  distinguished  Eomish 
opponents  was  Albert  Pighius  (d.  1543),  who  wrote  against  him  a 
work  in  two  books,  "  Concerning  free  will  and  grace."  Cologne,  1542. 
He  maintained  "  that  original  sin  in  young  children  is  nothing  else  but 
the  actual  sin  of  Adam  that  is  imputed  to  them,  and  that,  properly 
speaking,  there  is  no  blemish  in  them  of  inherent  sin."* 

Calvin|,  in  reply  to  Pighius,  says  :  "  If_  Pighius  holds  that  original 
,'  ■.  •  ^  sin  is  not  sufficient  to  damn  men,  and  that  the  Becret  council  of  (rod  is 
not  to  be  admitted,  what  will  he  do  with  infant  children,  who,  before 
they  have  reached  an  age  at  which  they  can  give  any  such  specimens 
.  .  [as  he  demands],  are  snatched  from  this  life  .  .  For  inasmuch  as 
the  conditions  of  birth  and  death  were  alike  to  infanta  who  died  in 
Sodom  and  those  who  died  in  Jerusalem :  and  there  were  no  difference 
in  their  works:  why  will  Christ,  at  the  last  day,  separate  some  to  stand 
a*;  His  right  hand,  others  at  His  left  ?" 

Calvin  assumes  as  granted,  and  as  undisputed  that  the  infants  of 
Sodom  were  damned.  He  appeals  to  it  as  a  known  something  to  settle 
a  contested  point,  and  after  the  words  we  have  cited  goes  on  to  say : 
"  Who  will  not  adore  this  wonderful  judgment  of  God  whereby  it  comes 
to  pass  that  some  are  born  at  Jerusalem,  whence  soon  they  pass  to  a 
better  life,  while  Sodom,  the  gates  of  the  lower  regions,  receives  others 
at  their  birth  ?" 

*  Du  Pin's  Ecclesiastical  History  of  the  Sixteenth  Century.  Lond.,  1710.  Vol. 
I.  427.  Herzog,  Real.  En.  XL  662,  XV.  216.  f  De  sterna  Dei  Prcedes  ina- 
tione.     Tom.  VIII.  611. 


Calvinism  and  Romanism  on  Infant  Salvation.        47 

Pishus  assumed  that  children  have  no  inherent  sin,  in  order 
to  prove  that  they  ought  not  to  be  positively  damned.  Calvin 
assumed  that  children  are  damned,  to  strengthen  the  proof 
that  they  have  inherent  sin.  The  damnation  of  infants  is  the 
Pou  sto  from  which  Calvin  proposes  to  move  Pighius'  world  of 
error.  The  tone  of  assurance  in  the  old  Calvinistic  divines  in 
asserting  infant  damnation  is  very  striking. 

They  not  only  do  not  doubt  the  doctrine,  but  they  assume 
that  no  man  in  his  senses  can  doubt  it.  Not  only  is  an  argu- 
ment not  weakened  by  involving  infant  perdition,  but  infant 
perdition  stiffens  up  an  argument  otherwise  weak.  Never  was 
error  more  effectually  driven  to  bay,  in  their  judgment,  than 
when  it  was  shown  that  if  that  error  were  granted,  infant  sal- 
vation, or  even  the  middle  state  of  Limbus,  would  follow.  The 
doctrine  of  infant  damnation  virtually  formed  a  part  of  the 
Calvinistic  analogy  of  faith. 

Chamier  against  the  Romanists. — The  name  of  Cha- 
mier (d.  1621)  is  one  of  the  greatest,  not  only  among  Cal- 
vinistic divines,  but  in  all  theological  literature.  His  Panstra- 
tise  Catholicse  (1626)  is  the  ablest  work  from  a  Calvinistic  hand 
in  the  great  Roman  Catholic  Controversy,  and  takes  its  general 
rank  with  books  like  Chemnitz's  Examen  and  Gerhard's  Con- 
fessio  Catholica.  It  was  prepared  at  the  request  of  the  Synod 
of  Larochelle.*  There  is  no  difference  of  opinion  among  com- 
petent judges  as  to  its  distinguished  merits,  and  it  is  justly 
regarded  among  all  Calvinists  as  one  of  the  highest  authorities. 
The  word  "Catholic,"  in  the  title  of  Chamier's  book,  and 
throughout,  is  used  in  its  Protestant  sense,  as  equivalent  to 
"Christian,"  or  "Orthodox,"  and  by  the  "Catholics,"  Cha- 
mier means  especially  the  "  Calvinists."     It  is  the  "  Catholics '' 

*  Herzog's  Real-Encycl.  II.  632.     Bayle's  Diet.  Art.  Chamier. 


48  Review  of  Dr.  Hodge's  Systematic  Theology. 

against  the  "Papists,"  who  appear  in  this  book.  In  his  dis- 
cussion of  the  "penalty  of  original  sin,''  *  Chamier  first  states 
the  views  of  the  Papists,  as  three-fold :  1.  "  That  infants 
(dying  in  original  sin)  are  excluded  from  the  kingdom  of  hea- 
ven; yet  enjoy  outside  of  it  a  certain  natural  blessedness." 
2.  "That  those  who  die  in  original  sin  only,  are  not  happy, 
yet  endure  no  pain,  or  ' penalty  of  sense'  (pcenam  sensus),  but 
are  punished  only  with  the  penalty  of  loss  (pcena  damni),  that 
is,  are  deprived  of  the  vision  of  God."  3.  "  Others  liberate 
them  from  that  torment  (Mark  ix.)  '  in  which  the  worm  dieth 
not,'  but  affirm  that  the  loss  of  blessedness  will  be  accompanied 
by  internal  pain,  so  that  their  penalty  will  be  one  both  of  loss 
and  of  sense."  Bellarmine  regards  the  third  as  the  most  pro- 
bable, but  the  majority  of  the  Roman  Catholic  divines  accept 
the  second. 

In  opposition  to  these  mitigating  constructions  Chamier  de- 
clares "the  Catholics"  (Calvinists)  maintain  that  infants  also, 
guilty  of  original  sin,  are  by  God's  just  sentence  damned  (reos 
solius  originalis  peccati,  justa  Dei  sententia  damnari) :  and  that 
in  that  damnation  they  are  not  merely  exiled  from  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,  but  in  very  deed  suffer  that  eternal  fire  which  is  ap- 
pointed for  the  devil  and  his  angels  ("  re  veri  pati  ignem  aiter- 
num,  assignation  diabolo  et  Angelis  ejus.")  *  *  "  There  is  not 
merely  a  privation  of  eternal  blessedness,  but  also  real  pains 
in  hell,  loss  conjoined  with  sense."  For  the  soundness  of  these 
positions  Chamier  argues  at  great  length. 

Maresius  against  the  Romanists. — Another  of  the  great- 
est names,  in  high  renown  for  ability  and  Calvinistic  ortho- 
doxy, is  that  of  Maresius  (d.  1673).  f     He  has  been  called 

*  Chamierus  Contractus  sive  Panstratite  Catholic.  D.  Charaieri  thsologi  summi 
Epitome.     Opera  Fr.  Spanheim.     Genev.  1643.  Fol.  797,  798. 

f  Pfaff,  etc.  Herzog:  Real-Encyl.  Art.  Maresius.  Bayle's  Dictionary:  Do. 
Walch  Einleit.,  in  Rel.  Str.  auss.  d.  Ev.  Luth.  Kirchen.    Th.  479. 


Calvinism  and  Romanism  on  Infant  Salvation.  49 

the  Calvinistic  Calovius.     His  life  was  a  life  of  contest  against 
the  errors  outside  of  Calvinism,  and  errors  which  tried  to  shel- 
ter themselves  within  it.     His  greatest  work  is  in  his  reply  to 
Tirinus,  the  Jesuit,  who  had  added  to  his  Commentary  (1632) 
an  "  Index  of  Controversies  on  Matters  of  Faith."     Maresius 
first  gives  Tirinus  in  full,  in  his  own  words,  and  then  adds  his 
own  strictures.     Tirinus  says,  speaking  of  the  "  punishment  of 
original  sin:"  "In  the  other  life,  original  sin,  for  example,  in 
the  case  of  infants  who  by  it  are  unfitted  for  that  life,  is  pun- 
ished eternally.     First,  by  a  mournful  want  of  the  society  of 
the  Saints,  and  of  the  vision  and  fruition  of  God.     Second,  by 
a  want  of  natural   blessedness    *    *    they  are  in  prison,  light 
and  pleasant  indeed,  yet  of  the  nature  of  hell  (infernali),  in 
which,  under  the  power  of  the  devil,  they  dwell  to  eternity." 

The  completest  answer  to  Tirinus,  had  it  been  possible  on 
Calvinistic  grounds,  would  have  been  a  denial  that  infants  are 
lost  at  all — there  is  no  limbus  for  them — they  pass,  without 
exception,  to  heaven.  But  the  answer  of  Maresius  is  exactly 
the  opposite :  there  is  no  limbus  for  lost  infants,  nothing  but 
hell.  Maresius*  says:  "There  are  two  rocks  to  be  avoided 
here :  For  I.  We  do  not  think  that  the  children  of  the  faithful 
*  *  who  die  before  baptism,  are  to  be  excluded  from  the  king- 
dom of  heaven."  II.  The  punishment  of  those  (children)  who 
are  not  received  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  we  hold  to  be 
eternal  death,  not  merely  that  of  loss  (in  the  Socinian  or  Papal 
sense),  but  also  of  sense;  hence,  we  rightly  reject  that  third 
place  which  our  adversaries  call  the  Limbus  of  children,  for 
1.  Eternal  death  is  the  wages  of  every  kind  of  sin,  and  there- 
fore of  original  sin,  and  so  ought  to  be  the  portion  of  those" 
(children)  "  who   are  shut  out  from  heaven   arid  eternal  life. 

*  Theologiso  Elenchticra  Nova  Synopsis.     Groningaj,  16-18.  2  V.  4to,  I.  539. 

4 


50  Review  of  Dr.  Hodge's  Systematic  Theology. 

2.  There  are  two  paths  only — one  goes  to  life  and  heaven,  the 
other  to  perdition  and  hell.  3.  Into  the  outer  darkness  where 
there  is  weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth — not  into  a  '  light  and 
pleasant '  prison,  as  Tirinus  feigns — are  they  cast  who  are  not 
admitted  to  the  joys  of  heaven.  4.  They  who  are  not  wheat, 
are  assigned  to  unquenchable  fire.  To  feign  a  middle  order, 
who  are  neither  wheat  nor  chaff — neither  elect  nor  reprobate — 
neither  redeemed  nor  unredeemed  by  Christ — what  is  this  but 
to  rave  ?  5.  If  even  the  infants  who  are  redeemed  by  Christ, 
and  who  are  to  be  saved  in  heaven,  are  not  free  from  temporal 
death  and  those  pains  and  miseries  which  are  penalties  of  na- 
ture, why  should  we  exempt  from  the  pains  of  hell  even  as  to 
sense,  those''  (infants)  "whom  Christ  did  not  redeem,  and  of 
whom  he  sustained  neither  the  persons  nor  penalties  on  the 
cross.  7.  This  view  was  the  invention  of  Pelagius  and  the 
ancient  Pelagians.  8.  It  is  opposed  to  the  view  of  Augustine 
and  of  his  followers." 

Maresius  then  cites  passages  from  Augustine  and  his  disci- 
ples which  teach  that  unbaptized  infants,  even  those  who  are 
unbaptized  because  they  die  unborn,  are  to  "  be  punished  with 
the  everlasting  torment  of  eternal  fire"  (ignus  osterni  sempiterno 
supplicio  puniendos).  Maresius,  after  quoting  these  passages 
in  his  own  behalf  against  Tirinus,  says  that  "  Augustine  and 
his  followers  erred  in  seeming  to  bind  the  justifying,  regenerat- 
ing and  sanctifying  grace  of  Christ  to  the  outward  sacrament 
of  Baptism,"  and  then  adds:  "but  what  they  hold,  that  infants, 
the  guilt  of  whose  original  sin  God  has  not  remitted  for 
Christ's  sake,  and  whom  he  has  not  washed  from  the  stain  of 
it  through  the  grace  of  regeneration,  are,  in  common  with 
other  reprobates,  to  undergo  the  punishment  of  eternal  death  is 
most  true "  (quod  statuunt  poenam  mortis  osterna?  cum  aliis 
reprobis  subituros  infantes     .     .     est  verissimwn)." 


Calvinism  and  Pelagianism.  51 

And  even  when  Calvinism  began  to  reveal  a  mitigating  ten- 
dency, it  still  held  for  a  long  time  firmly  to  the  idea,  over 
against  the  Pelagianism,  as  it  considered  it,  of  the  Church  of 
Rome,  that  non-elect  infants  are  damned. 

On  the  question  :  "  Whether  original  sin  of  its  own  nature 
merits  eternal  damnation,  or  simply  excludes  from  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,  and  deprives  of  the  beatific  vision  unbaptized  infants  Vf 
Lampe  *  asserts  the  former,  over  against  the  Roman  Catho- 
lics who  maintain  the  latter. 

Result.  We  write  it  with  sorrow,  but  truth  compels  us  to  say 
that  on  this  point  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  is  far  more  shocking 
than  that  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  for  it  casts  upon 
the  thousands  even  of  baptized  children  the  shadow  of  doubt, 
substituting  in  the  best  cases  a  mere  charitable  presumption, 
for  a  firm  assurance,  and  outside  of  these,  leaves  to  eternal 
privation  and  eternal  misery,  the  great  mass  of  dying  infants 
who  are  not  "children  of  the  faithful." 

§  32.    CALVINISxM  AND  PELAGIANISM. 

Calvinism  constantly  maintains  the  doctrine  of  infant  damna- 
tion, as  essential  to  a  consistent  position  against  Pelagianism. 
This  point  has  already  been  made,  in  other  connections,  in  a 
number  of  our  quotations.     It  would  be  easy  to  add  to  them. 

Stapfer. — Stapferf  states  the  ninth  objection  of  the  Pelagians  in 
these  terms:  "To  subject  infants  to  eternal  punishments  because  of 
Adam's  sin  would  be  to  deal  more  severely  with  them  than  with  the 
devil  himself,  or  with  Adam,  who  himself  committed  sin."  In  his 
reply  to  this,  Stapfer  says  :  "  As  to  the  children  of  unbelievers  we  be- 
lieve that  they  will  be  separated  from  the  communion  of  God,  and 
hence  in  the  very  fact  tbat  as  children  of  wrath  and  cursing,  they  are 
excluded  from  the  beatific  communion  of  God,  they  will  be  damned." 

*  Ruiimenta  Theolog.  Elenchticae,  Breni£B,  1729,  p.  55. 
flnstitut.  Theolog.  polemic.     Tiguri,  1716,  IV.  517. 


52  Review  of  Dr.  Hodge's  Systematic  Theology. 

CALVIN  AGAINST  SERVETUS. 

The  controversy  with  Servetus  comes  into  the  same  general 
line  of  argument,  and  may  therefore  properly  be  introduced 
here. 

The  whole  body  of  Genevan  pastors,  fifteen  in  number,  with 
Calvin  heading  the  list,*  charge  upon  Servetus,  as  one  of  his 
errors — the  errors  which  cost  him  his  life — that  he  asserts  that 

"  he  dare  condemn  none  of  the  (infant)  offspring  of  Ninevites  or  Bar- 
barians to  hell  (futurum  gehennam)  because,  in  his  opinion,  a  merciful 
Lord,  who  hath  freely  taken  away  the  sins  of  the  godless,  would  never 
so  severely  condemn  those  by  whom  no  godless  act  has  been  committed, 
and  who  are  most  innocent  images  of  God,"  and  further  he  infers  that 
"  all  who  are  taken  from  life  as  infants  and  children  are  exempt  from 
eternal  death,  though  they  be  elsewhere  called  accursed."! 

§  33.    CALVINISM  AND  ARMINIANISM,  ON  THE   ELECTION    AND 

REPROBATION    OF    INFANTS,     AND    THE        INSANE. 

CASTALIO,  THE  FORERUNNER  OF  ARMINIANISM. 

Calvin  against  §Castalio.  Calvin  J  wrote  with  great 
bitterness  against  Castalio,  who  had  been  his  friend,  but  who 
speedily  showed  the  working  of  the  tendencies  which  matured 
at  a  later  period  unto  Arminianism : 

"  You  deny  that  it  is  lawful  for  God,  except  for  misdeed,  to  condemn 
I  „.  any  human  being.     Nevertheless  numberless  infants  are  removed   from 

life.  Put  forth  now  your  virulence  against  God,  who  precipitates  into 
eternal  death  harmless  new-born  children  (innoxios  foetus)  torn  from 
their  mother's  bosoms.  Your  masters,  Servetus,  Pighius,  and  such  like 
dogs  (similes  canes),  say  at  least  that  before  the  world  was  created  some 
were  condemned  whom  God  foreknew  worthy  of  destruction.  But  you 
will  not  concede  that  He  devotes  to  eternal  death  any  except  those  who 
for  perpetrated  evil  deeds  would  be  exposed  to  penalty  under  earthly 
judges  .  .  .  You  do  not  hesitate  to  overturn  the  whole  order  of 
divine  justice," 

*  Refutatio  Errorum  Miohaelis  Serveti,  Opera,  Tom.  VILI.  559.     f  Do.  do.  597. 
J  De  occulta  Dai  Providentia  (155S),  Opera.     Anntelodam.  1667.     Tom.     VIII. 
644,  645. 


Calvinism   and   Arminianism.  53 

It  is  in  meeting  objectors  of  the  school  of  Castalio,  Calvin  says  :* 
"  Whence  hath  it  come  that  the  fall  of  Adam  hath  involved  in  eternal 
death  so  many  nations  with  their  infant  children  without  remedy,  un- 
less, because  it  so  pleased  God  ?  Here  the  tongues  that  have  been  so  ,p.  _L  .q 
voluble  it  becomes  to  be  mute.  That  the  decree  is  fearful,  I  confess  : 
yet  no  man  can  deny  that  God  foreknew  before  He  created  him  what 
end  man  should  have  ;  and  foreknew  it  because  He  had  so  ordained  it 
by  His  decree."  "  There  are  those  born  among  men,  devoted  from  the 
womb  to  certain  death,  who  by  their  destruction  glorify  God's  name."  f 

Arminius. — When  the  element  of  opposition  to  Calvinism, 
which  had  smouldered  in  it  from  its  beginning,  broke  into  a 
light  flame  in  Arminius  (1560-1609),  the  damnation  of  infants 
was  one  of  the  first  points  of  assault  on  the  one  side,  of  firm, 
repeated  statements  and  defense  on  the  other.  The  fiercer 
struggle  which  followed  the  death   of  Arminius,  is  full   of  il- 

CO  7 

lustrations  of  the  unrelenting  tenacity  with  which  Calvinism 
held  as  essential  to  sound  doctrine  the  reality  of  infant  repro- 
bation and  of  infant  damnation.  Arminius,  the  pupil  of  Beza, 
who  was  Calvin's  greatest  scholar,  and  of  Grynosus,  was  high 
in  repute  in  the  Church  of  Holland,  and  in  1604  as  successor 
of  Junius,  became  Professor  of  Theology  in  the  University  of 
Leyden,  and  received  from  the  hand  of  Gomarus  the  Doctorate. 
Chosen  to  defend  the  system  of  Calvin  and  Beza,  his  more 
careful  examination  of  the  system  led  him  to  reject  it.  His 
learning  and  his  mildness  are  beyond  all  dispute.  His  desire 
was  not  to  magnify  the  points  of  difference  between  himself 
and  the  Calvinists,  but  to  reduce  them  in  bulk,  and  to  soften 
them  in  tone  as  much  as  possible.  In  1608  he  was  summoned 
before  the  Orders  of  Holland,  and  commanded  explicitly  to 
state  his  views  on  the  doctrines  in  dispute.  In  stating  the 
views  of  the  Calvinistic  divines,  which  he  controverted  u  as 
they  are  embraced  everywhere  (passim)  in  their  own  writings," 

*  Insti'ut.   Lib    III.  XXIII.  7.     Opera,  IX.  254.    Compared  with  Fetherstone's 
Translation,  Edinburgh,  1587.         f  Do.  do.  \  6.     fVA/ 


54  Review  of  Br,  Hodge  s  Systematic  Theology. 

he  notes  that  they  hold  that  "  the  children  of  the  faithful  and 
holy,  God  leads  to  salvation  by  a  shorter  way  (than  this  of 
adults),  if  they  depart  this  life  before  they  come  to  riper  years  ; 
that  is  to  say,  if  so  be  (nimirum  siquidem)  they  belong  to  the 
number  of  the  elect  (whom  Crod  alone  knoweth)." 

"  The  means  of  the  execution  of  reprobation  to  eternal 
death  pertains  in  part  to  all  the  rejected  and  reprobate  (whether 
they  reach  adult  life  or  die  before  they  reach  it),  partly  to  some 
only.  The  means  common  to  the  whole  is  desertion ;  the 
means  peculiar  to  some  is  hardening."* 

THE  CONTRA-REMONSTRANT  (CALVINISTIC)  RESPONSE.       1611. 

The  statement  of  Arminius  as  to  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of 
infant  reprobation  was  never  denied — on  the  contrary  every 
reference  to  it  shows  that  there  was  no  disposition  to  dispute 
its  correctness.  The  doctrine  might  be  palliated  in  the  mode 
of  statement,  but  as  to  the  fact  involved  the  Calvinists  and 
Arminians  do  not  differ.  The  Calvinists  in  their  Response, 
1611,  say  : 

"  As  elect  of  God  are  also  to  be  esteemed  (habendos)  .  .  the  children 
of  the  covenant,  so  long  as  they  do  not  in  fact  (reipsa)  demonstrate  the 
contrary,  wherefore,  faithful  parents  should  not  doubt  concerning  the 
salvation  of  their  children,  when  they  die  in  infancy." 

This  is  the  theory  we  constantly  meet  with :  First,  that  it  is 
to  be  presumed  that  all  the  children  of  the  elect  are  elect ; 
second,  that  the  presumption  is  often  shown  to  be  groundless  by 
the  after  life  of  these  children  ;  third,  that  this  presumption, 
often  fallacious  and  never  certain,  is  the  only  refuge  of  parents 
who  love  their  children — they  are  presumed  to  be  elect,  and  as 
they  die  before  they  can  "  in  fact  demonstrate  the  contrary," 
the  presumption,  such  as  it  is,  is  left  in  full  force. 

*  The  defense  is  given  in  full  in  Jagers  :  Hist.  Eccles.  Sec.  dec.  Sept.  Tubingae. 
1691.    Ann.  1608,  pp.  301-328. 


The  Synod  of  Dort.  55 

§  34.    THE  SYNOD  OF  DORT. 

The  National  Synod  of  Dort,  1618,  1619,  was  meant,  if 
possible,  to  unite  the  entire  Calvinistic  Churches  against  the 
common  foe.  At  the  outstart  it  was  not  so  much  Arminians 
who  charged  Calvinists  with  teaching  infant  reprobation  and 
damnation,  as  it  was  Calvinists,  who  charged  on  Arminians,  as 
a  deadly  error,  that  their  principles  legitimately  led  to  a  denial 
of  this  doctrine,  though  the  Arminians  had  not  yet  consistency 
or  courage  enough  distinctly  to  make  the  denial  in  an  unre- 
served form.  For  so  strong  was  the  current  of  Calvinism  in 
regard  to  infant  reprobation  and  infant  damnation,  that  even 
the  Remonstrant  Arminians  could  not  directly  set  themselves 
wholly  against  it.  The  Arminians  at  first  acknowledged  a  sort 
of  negative  hell  for  some  infants  (the  poena  damni),  and  the 
Calvinists,  over  against  this,  argue  for  a  positive  one  (the 
poena  sensus).  Over  against  this  Arminian  tendency,  even 
with  this  softening  and  spirit  of  concession,  the  utterances  of 
the  divines  at  Dort  were  of  the  most  decided  kind.  Infant  re- 
probation, and  the  actual  damnation  of  infants,  were  asserted 
in  manifold  shapes,  and  in  all  the  public  discussions  of  that 
body  no  Calvinist  of  any  land  uttered  a  word  of  doubt  or  of 
mitigation.  There  were  points  on  which  differences  were  ex- 
pressed, there  were  feelings  aroused  which  threatened  the  very 
continuance  of  the  Synod,  but  there  was  a  happy  harmony  in 
regard  to  infant  reprobation. 

THE  SYNOD  OF  DORT  ON  THE  BAPTISM  OF  PAGAN  INFANTS. 

— At  the  Eighteenth  and  Nineteenth  Sessions  (Dec.  1,  3, 
1619,)  the  question  of  the  Baptism  of  the  infants  of  heathen 
who  came  under  Christian  control  was  discussed.  At  the 
Twenty- first  Session  (Dec.  5)  it  was   determined:  "  that   they 


56  Review  of  Dr.  Hodge's  Systematic  Theology. 

should  by  no  means  {nullo  modo)  be  baptized    before  they  at- 
tained years  of  discretion."  * 

The  Official  Judgment  set  forth  by  the  Arminians  at 
Dort. — At  the  Twenty-third  Session,  Dec.  23,  1619,  the  Sententia,  or 
Official  Judgment  on  Predestination  signed  by  all  the  Kemonstrant  di- 
vines present,  Avas  read  by  Episcopius.     Two  articles  in  it  ran  thus ; 

IX. :  "  All  the  children  of  the  faithful  are  sanctified  in  Christ,  so  that 
not  one  of  them,  dying  before  the  use  of  reason,  perishes ;  in  no  wise,  on 
the  contrary,  are  even  some  of  the  children  of  the  faithful,  dying  in  in- 
fancy, before  any  sin  of  act  (actuale)  committed  in  their  own  person,  to 
be  counted  in  the  number  of  the  reprobate,  so  that  neither  the  holy 
laver  of  Baptism,  nor  the  prayers  of  the  Church  can  in  any  way  profit 
them  to  salvation." 

How  sharp  and  clear  is  the  antithesis.  The  Calvinists  hold 
that  some  of  the  infants  of  the  faithful,  to  wit,  the  elect  chil- 
dren, are  sanctified ;  the  Arminians  declare  that  all  are ;  the 
Calvinists  hold  that  some  infants  of  the  faithful  perish ;  the 
Arminians  declare  that  none  do ;  the  Calvinists  taught  that 
there  were  infants,  to  wit,  reprobate  infants,  to  whom  neither 
Baptism  nor  the  prayers  of  the  Church  brought  saving  blessing. 
The  Arminians  declare  that  there  is   no  such  class  of  infants. 

But  the  Arminians  saw  that  the  constant  hypothecating  of 
the  death  of  the  infants  left  the  vital  centre  of  the  question  un- 
touched. On  the  Calvinistic  side  such  a  hypothecating  seemed 
to  imply  that  the  death  of  the  infant  in  some  way  influenced  its 
election  ;  whereas,  in  fact,  on  the  Calvinistic  theory  the  child's 
death  has  nothing  to  do  with  its  election.  An  absolute  election 
does  not  take  into  regard  the  death  of  the  infant  at  all.  If 
the  adult  life  of  the  children  of  the  elect  shows,  that  many  in- 
fants of  the  elect,  who  live,  are  among  the  reprobate,  it  equally 
shows,  that  many  infants  of  the  elect  who  die   are  among  the 

*  Author  Anon — qui  interfuit  Synodo.  Given  in  J'ager,  H.  E.  1619,  314. 
Brandt,  III.  37.  In  the  Acta  Synodi  I.  49.,  the  decision  is  given  under  Ses- 
sion   XIX. 


The  Synod  of  Dort.  57 

reprobate,  for  the  two  classes  are  exactly  alike  before  an  abso- 
lute decree.  All  Calvinists,  even  those  of  the  gentle  type  of 
Dr.  Hod<*e,  are  compelled  to  acknowledge  that  there  are  non- 
elect  or  reprobate  infants  ;  that  is,  that  the  non-elect  or  repro- 
bate are  such  always ;  such  though  unborn ;  such  at  their 
birth ;  and  through  their  whole  infancy.  Only  the  milder 
class  hold,  that  such  infants  always  grow  up  to  the  age  of  re- 
sponsibility— no  non-elect  infants  ever  die,  according  to  this 
new  school  of  Calvinism.  It  has  found  out  part  of  God's 
secret  of  fore-ordination.  It  is,  that  infant  death  is  the  seal  of 
infant  election  ;  the  death  of  the  infant  is  the  true  sacrament 
of  its  adoption — Baptism  is  not.  The  Arminians  met  the 
fallacious  hypothecating  in  their  next  article,  which  reads  thus  : 

"No  children  of  believers  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  while  they  are  living  in  the  state  of 
infancy,  are  to  be  counted  among  those  who  have  been  reprobated  by  an 
absolute  decree."* 

It  will  be  noticed,  that  the  Arminians  confine  their  state- 
ment to  the  "  children  of  the  faithful"  but  these,  when  bap- 
tized, in  no  ease,  equally  if  they  live,  as  if  they  die,  are  to  be 
counted  among  the  reprobate.  With  the  Word  of  God,  with 
pure  antiquity,  and  with  an  overwhelming  majority  of  the 
Church  of  Christ  in  all  ages,  the  Augustinian  portion,  no  less 
heartily  than  the  others,  the  Arminians,  regarded  Baptism  in  a 
light  in  which  Calvinism  completely  anti- Augustinian  here, 
cannot  regard  it,  as  the  evidence  in  the  infant  of  a  present 
state  of  grace. 

A  recent  writer  f  has  praised  Calvin  for  denying,  that  in- 
fants dying  unbaptized  are  ipso  facto  lost.  That  was  well  in 
Calvin,  so  far,  but  that  writer  has   failed  to  note  that  just  in 

*  Acta  Sjnodi,  113.     Brandt,  III.  S4.       f  Lecky  :  F-ationali  in  in  Europe.     Rev. 
Edit.  New  York,  1S72,  I.  367. 


58  Review  of  Br.  Hodge's  Systematic  TJieology. 

proportion  as  Calvin  weakens  the  assumption  that  non-baptism 
proves  that  a  child  is  lost,  he  weakens  the  faith  that  a  baptized 
child  is  saved — that  if  non-baptism  is  no  evidence  of  a  child's 
damnation,  baptism  is  no  evidence  of  its  salvation.  Calvin's 
theory  involves  the  certain  damnation  of  the  majority  of  the 
infants  of  the  race,  and  does  not  claim  that  there  is  distinct 
evidence  even  in  the  most  hopeful  case  that  any  particular 
child  is  saved.  It  does  not  widen  the  probability  of  infant 
salvation,  as  Lecky  supposes,  but  narrows  it.  It  does  not 
exalt  infant  salvation,  but  simply  lowers  Baptism. 

The  Arminian  Challenge. — The  Arminians  urged  an  explicit 
reply  :  "  It  has  been  given  out  among  the  common  people  that  we  have 
.  .  falsely  represented  the  doctrines  of  the  Contra-remonstrants.  .  . 
If  this  be  true,  let  them  as  plainly  and  flatly  renounce  those  doctrines 
as  we  do."  *  "  We  especially  (unice)  desire  to  know  from  this  vener- 
able Synod,  whether  it  acknowledges  as  its  own  doctrine  and  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Church,  particularly  (nominatim)  what  is  asserted  .  . 
concerning  the  creation  of  the  larger  part  of  mankind  for  destruction, 
the  reprobation  of  infants  even  though  born  of  believing  parents."  f 

So  simple  and  direct  a  challenge  could  properly  allow  of 
but  two  answers.  One  would  have  been  "  the  views  of  infant 
reprobation,  you  reject,  we  reject  also."  The  other  would  have 
been,  "  the  views  you  reject,  we  maintain."  The  answers  at 
Dort  all  rest  on  the  second  position,  and  are  expressed  in  far 
stronger  terms  than  the  Arminians  had  employed.  They  state 
the  views  from  which  the  Arminians  dissent. 

Dort  is  Politic. — There  is,  however,  a  marked  difference 
between  two  classes  of  utterance  in  the  Synod  of  Dort.  Those 
that  were  meant  for  the  great  public  are  cautious  and  illu- 
sive in  the  framing.  The  truth  was  too  palpable  to  be  denied, 
nor  did  the  men  of  Dort  desire  to  deny  it,  but  they  wished  to 
avoid  the  odium  of  unmitigated  statement.     On  the  contrary, 

♦Acta,  119.     Brandt,  III.  190.         f Acta,  121.     Brandt,  III.  93. 


Synod  of  Dort.  59 

the  statements  meant  for  the  Synod  itself,  and  for  its   theolo- 
gians, are  clear,  sharp,  and  cruel. 

Of  the  former  class,  is  its  First  Canon  :* 

"  XVII.  Inasmuch  as  we  must  judge  of  the  will  of  God  from  His 
Word,  which  testifies  that  the  children  of  the  faithful  are  holy,  not 
indeed  by  nature,  but  by  benefit  of  the  gracious  covenant,  wherein  they, 
together  with  their  parents,  are  comprised,  godly  parents  ought  not  to 
doubt  of  the  election  and  salvation  of  their  children  whom  God  calls  out 
of  this  life  in  their  infancy." 

The  impression  produced  by  these  words  on  a  plain  reader, 
divested  of  the  key  to  their  sense,  is  entirely  illusive.  He  sees 
indeed  that  they  imply  that  the  infants  of  pagans,  Jews  and 
all  non-Christians  are  lost;  that  they  offer  no  hope  to  the  in- 
fants of  merely  nominal  Christians,  and  that  within  the  Calvin- 
istic  Church  itself  they  confine  the  hope  to  the  children  of  the 
"  faithful,"  of  believers,  of  those  "comprised  within  the  gra- 
cious covenant,"  "the  godly."  They  mean  therefore  that 
within  the  visible  Church  itself  there  is  no  hope  in  regard  to 
the  great  mass  of  children.  But  the  plain  reader  will  per- 
haps need  to  be  told  that  though  we  "must  judge  of  the  will 
of  God  from  His  Word,"  Calvinistic  theology  rests  on  a  "  will 
of  God  "  which  is  not  revealed  in  His  Word,  what  the  West- 
minster Confession  (III.  iv.)  calls  "  the  secret  counsel  and 
good  pleasure  of  His  will,"  and  that  this  is  the  very  will  in- 
volved in  the  election  of  infants.  The  plain  reader  may  need 
to  be  told  that  the  "  holiness"  of  the  children  of  the  faithful, 
of  which  Dort  speaks,  is  one  which  involves  of  necessity  neither 
change  of  nature  nor  election,  but  exists  equally  in  the  cases 
in  which  the  children  of  the  faithful  grow  up  into  manifold  re- 

*  Acta,  252.  The  Canons  are  given  in  Latin  in  Augusti.  Corpus,  Lib.  Symb. 
Eccles.  Reform.  Elberfeld,  1827,  198-240.  Niemeyer  :  Collect.  Confess.  Lipsije, 
1840,  690-72S.  They  are  given  in  English  in  Hall's  Harmony  of  Confessions. 
Lond.  1844,  639-573  ;  in  German  in  Beck's  Sammlung  Symb.  Buccher.  Neu- 
stadt.     1845,     I.  344. 


60  Review  of  Dr.  Hodge's   Systematic   Theology. 

probacy.  If  it  meant  more  it  would  bring  the  Calvinistic  sys- 
tem to  the  ground,  for  if  all  the  children  of  believers  are  regene- 
rate, all  of  them  are  elect;  and  as  some  of  the  children  of  be- 
lievers die  unregenerate,  it  would  follow  that  some  of  the  elect 
fell  finally  from  grace,  and  with  their  fall,  Calvinism  itself 
would  fall.  It  is  the  old  theory  over  again — a  presumption 
resting  on  a  presumption,  and  begetting  a  presumption  that 
some  dying  infants,  nobody  knows  which,  may  be  saved. 

But  the  disingenuousness  of  Dort  has  gone  yet  further.  After  giving 
what  it  styles  "  the  plain  and  simple  explication  of  the  Orthodox  doc- 
trine," it  denounces  certain  allegations  of  the  Eemonstrants.  One  of 
the  charges  thus  denounced  is  that  Calvinists  hold  that  "  many  innocent 
infants  of  believers  are  torn  from  the  breasts  of  their  mothers,  and  tyran- 
nically plunged  into  hell."*  The  official  paper  of  the  Remonstrants 
i  published  in  the  acts  of  the  Synod  of  Dort  show  that  they  did  not  make 
the  charge  that  Calvinists  held  that  "  many  "  infants  of  believers  are 
lost,  but  that  they  disavowed  for  themselves  the  doctrine  that  any  are 
lost,  and  asked  the  Synod  to  express  itself  clearly  on  this  point.  The 
rhetorical  nourish  about  "innocent  infants  torn  from  the  breasts  of  their 
mothers,"  was  not  used  by  the  Eemonstrants  at  all  before  this  Synod. 
When  they  used  it  they  simply  quoted  Calvin.  (See  "  Calvin  against 
Castalio,"  already  quoted). 

The  real  meaning  of  the  evasive  words  of  Dort  was  at  once  pointed 
out  by  Episcopius  as  being  this :  "  The  reprobate  infants  of  the  faithful 
are  not  'innocent,'  but  guilty,  and  God  in  casting  them  into  hell,  does 
not  act  'tyrannically,'  but  exercises  only  the  just  rights  of  a  ruler."f 

Dort  is  candid. — The  official  judgments  of  the  theologians 
of  the  various  States  represented  at  Dort,  fix  with  the  greatest 
precision  the  meaning  of  its  Canons,  and  of  the  various  terms 
of  Calvinistic  orthodoxy. 

The  theologians  of  Great  Britain,  in  addition  to  what  we  have 
luoted,  say:  "  The  thesis  that  there  is  no  election  of  infants,  in  the  sense 
that  there  is  no  election  between  one  and  the  others,  as  if  all  were  indis- 
criminately saved,  is  a  hypothesis  without  any  foundation  whatever  to 
rest  on  (nee  ullis  fundamentis  nititur)."     They  quote  with  approval,  and 

*  Acta,  275.     Augusti :  239.     Niemeyer,  722.     Hall:  570.     Beck  :  393. 
f  Examen  Thesium. 


Synod  of  Dort.  61 

as  authority,  Prosper's  words:  "There  is  a  distinction  made  in  regard  to 
infants  by  God's  judgment;  some  are  taken  as  heirs,  and  others  passed 
by  as  debtors."  *  The  Swiss  theologians,  f  the  Bremen  theologians,!  as 
we  have  seen,  wrote  in  the  same  vein,  and  need  not  be  quoted  a  second 
time. 

The  Third  Part  of  the  Acts  of  the  Synod  of  Dort  embraces  the  judg- 
ments of  the  theologians  of  the  provinces.  We  have  given  the  judgment 
of  the  three  Belgic  Professors,?  and  of  Lubbert,  and  Lubbert  signs  the 
paper  of  the  three,  and  the  three  sign  the  paper  of  Lubbert,  as  if  they 
could  not  get  enough  of  signing  such  delicious  documents.  We  gave 
Lubbert's  Thesis  that  "some  are  lost  for  original  sin  only."  We  add  the 
sole  proof,  which  he  gives  of  the  Thesis :  "  This  Thesis  is  proved  by  the 
destruction  (interitus)  of  many  infants  who  die  in  infancy,  out  of  the 
Church  and  out  of  Christ." — 1| 

We  have  also  quoted  Gomarus.lf  None  of  these  judgments  give  an 
uncertain  sound  on  infant  damnation.  But  these  are  not  all.  The 
Deputies  of  the  Synod  of  South  Holland,**  mark  the  points  very 
clearly :  "  All  infants  are  liable  (obnoxiis)  to  eternal  damnation,  on 
account  of  original  sin,  and  that  reprobation  has  a  place  in  believers'  chil- 
dren also,  who  live  to  adult  years,  is  clearly  proved  by  Holy  Scripture 
and  experience.  But  whether  this  same  (reprobation)  has  a  place  also 
in  the  infants  of  believers,  who  die  in  infancy,  without  actual  sins,  is  a 
question  which  they  (the  Deputies)  think  is  not  too  nicely  (curiose)  to 
be  examined  into  ;  but  inasmuch  as  there  exist  in  Holy  Scriptures,  testi- 
monies which  take  away  from  believing  parents  all  occasion  (caasam)  of 
doubting  concerning  the  election  and  salvation  of  their  infants,  they 
think  that  these  (testimonies)  are  to  be  acquiesced  in."  Here  comes  up 
again  that  appalling  feature  of  the  old  Calvinism — we  are  to  acquiesce 
in  the  testimony  of  the  Word,  though  the  secret  counsel  may  make  that 
testimony  an  illusion. 

The  Theologians  from  Drenthe  ft  are  no  less  explicit :  "  We  are 
now  to  speak  of  infants,  under  which  (sub  quibus)  we  embrace  also  adults 
who  have  been  insane  from  their  birth  (adu'tos  mente  ab  exordio  vilcc  alien- 
atos),  that  is  to  say,  of  those  infants  who  die  in  infancy.  We  give  our 
judgment  (statuimus)  that  the  infants  of  unbelievers,  dying  in  infancy, 
are  reprobate.  .  .  .  The  infants  of  believers,  though  they  die  in  in- 
fancy, could  justly  be  reprobated  by  God  and  left  in  their  misery,  if 
God  willed  to  use  His  right.  Notwithstanding  (interim)  faithful  parents 
can  conceive  a  sure  hope  (certain  spem  possunt  concipere)  concerning  the 
salvation  of  such  little  infants  (infantorum  lorum) ;  for  we  do  not  read 
in  Scripture  that  such  were  ever  reprobated  ;  on  the  contrary,  the  Scrip- 
ture testifies  of  God's  good  affection  to  such." 

*  Acta    Judicia,    10.  f    D°-  40>  4*-  t    Do-  63-  2  Aota»  IIL  10>  n- 

li  Do.  20.  Tf  Do.  24,  26.  •*  Do.  39.  ft  Do.  91. 


62  Review  of  Dr.  Hodge's  Systematic   Theology. 

The  infants  of  the  reprobates,  dying  in  infancy,  are  repro- 
bate, and  those  who  are  insane  from  their  birth,  are  involved 
in  the  same  principles.  These  men  hold  that  a  part  of  our 
race  born  in  insanity,  living  in  insanity,  and  dying  in  insanity, 
are  damned,  and  to  this  view  logical  Calvinism  can  offer  no 
reply. 

§  35.    SEVERITY  OF   THE    CALVINISTIC    SPIRIT. 

The  terrible  earnestness  of  the  Calvinistic  feeling  against 
Arminianism,  complicated  and  inflamed  by  political  animosities, 
did  not  exhaust  itself  in  theses,  judgments,  canons,  condemna- 
tions and  denunciations.  The  State  was  for  the  time  a  theo- 
cratic instrument  of  the  divines.  The  Arminian  congregations 
were  forcibly  scattered.  They  were  forbidden  to  worship  God 
in  public.  Their  professors  and  pastors  were  deposed  and  ban- 
ished. The  banishment  was  so  sudden  that  those  at  Dort  were 
not  allowed  to  return  to  their  homes  to  bid  farewell  to  their 
loved  ones,  or  to  arrange  their  private  affairs.  Grotius  and 
Hogerbeets  were  sentenced  to  perpetual  imprisonment  in  the 
castle  of  Lovestein.  Over  the  dead  body  of  Ledenberg,  who 
had  committed  suicide  to  avoid,  as  it  was  thought,  the  terrors 
of  the  rack  (Sept.  28,  1618)  sentence  was  pronounced  May  15, 
1619;  the  body  was  drawn  upon  a  sledge  to  the  gibbet  and 
hung  upon  it.  The  aged  statesman  and  patriot,  Olden  Barne- 
veldt,  one  of  the  founders  of  the  civil  liberty  of  Holland,  was 
beheaded.  The  awful  severity  of  the  character  of  God,  as  the 
Calvinistic  system  construed  it,  reflected  itself  in  their  conduct 
toward  those  whom  they  regarded  as  His  enemies ;  the  system 
which  held  that  a  babe  unborn  might  justly  be  subject  to  eternal 
pains  "  without  remedy,"  would  not  spare  the  blow  which  pros- 
trated the  men  who  made  battle  against  the  system  which 
involved  these  views,  which  Calvinists  of  that  day  cherished  as 
the  very  truth  of  God. 


Apology  of  the  Arminians  and  the  Calvinistie  Censure.  63 

§  36.    THE   CONFESSION   AND   APOLOGY   OF   THE   ARMINIANS   AND 
THE    CALVINISTIO   CENSURE. 

The  "  Confession  "  of  the  Remonstrants,  written  1621,  by 
Episcopius,  appeared  in  1622.  It  was  answered  by  four  of  the 
Leyden  Professors,  in  a  "Censure."  The  "  Censure  "  drew 
forth  a  defence  (Apologia)  of  the  Confession  from  the  pen  of 
Episcopius.  The  Arminian  Confession  says :  "  God  has  pre- 
pared in  His  beloved  Son  a  free  remedy  for  all."  To  this  the 
Censure  replies :  "  If  they  mean  this,  even  of  all  them  who 
die  without  actual  sin  of  their  own,  we  see  not  how  they  can 
deny  that  they  are  Pelagians." 

In  their  reply  to  this  the  Remonstrants  say :  "  This  passage 
shows  that  our  adversaries  believe  that  absolute  reprobation  per- 
tains not  only  to  the  infants  of  the  Gentiles,  but  is  to  be  ex- 
tended to  the  infants  of  those  who  are  in  the  covenant,  and 
believers  ;  and,  however  they  may  wish  to  seem  in  any  case  to 
think  contrary  to  this,  that  is  to  be  understood  only  of  the 
judgment  of  charity,  not  of  faith."* 

The  Apology  of  the  Arminians  in  another  passage  states 
the  position  of  the  Calvinists  as  conveyed  in  this  question  : 
"  Why  shall  it  be  thought  absurd  or  wicked  to  say,  that  God 
not  only  wills  of  His  good  pleasure  to  destroy,  but  also  to 
devote  to  the  inner  torments  of  hell  the  larger  part  of  the 
human  race,  many  myriads  of  infants  torn  from  their  mothers' 
breasts  ?  for  these  are  the  horrid  inferences  which  the  school 
of  Calvin  rears  on  those  foundations,  which  consequently  the 
Remonstrants  look  upon  with  their  whole  soul  full  of  aversion 
and  abhorrence. "f 

*  Apologia  pro  Confessione— contra  Censuram,  1630,  4to,  87,  6.     (It  is  signifi- 
cant that  neither  the  name  of  the  printer  nor  of  the  place  of  publication  is  given.) 
t  57,  6. 


64  Review  of  Br.  Hodge's  Systematic  Theology. 

The  Apology  of  the  Arminians  was  answered  by  Trigland 
(1652-1705)  in  his  Antapologia.* 

§  37.    THE  GREAT  CALVINISTIC  DIVINES  AGAINST  THE  ARMINIANS. 

The  great  masters  in  polemic  not  only  grant  that  Calvinism 
held  the  damnation  of  infants,  but  strive  to  overwhelm  and 
defeat  Arminianism  for  not  holding  the  doctrine. 


o 


ClOPPENBURGH  :  "  This  dispute  has  drawn  into  the  question  in  regard 
to  infants  dying  in  infancy;  although  the  Remonstrants  themselves  do 
not  dare  to  put  into  heaven  the  infants  born  outside  the  covenant  of 
grace,  of  heathen  and  unbelieving  parents,  nor  to  admit  ithem  to  the 
communion  of  grace  and  glory :  because  the  Apostle  too  clearly  pro- 
nounces that  they  are  '  unclean '  children.     1  Cor.  vii.  14."  f 

"  Election  embraces  all  the  non  reprobates,  whether  adults  or  in- 
fants: and  it  is  an  impious  exception  of  the  Remonstrants,  who  exempt 
the  infants  of  the  heathen  from  being  subjects  of  reprobation  *  *  *  and 
prefer  to  put  on  an  equality  the  infants  of  unbelieving  heathen  and  of 
believing  Christians."  %  "  The  nature  of  a  gracious  covenant  is  destroyed, 
when  the  infants  of  the  heathen  are  put  upon  an  equality  with  the  in- 
fants of  faithful  Christians.  They  (the  Remonstrants)  themselves  admit 
that  the  infants  of  heathen  are  left  by  God  in  a  condition  of  nature,  de- 
prived of  the  good  of  grace  and  glory,  to  be  condemned,  at  least  to  that 
eternal  death  which  they  define  as  the  'penalty  of  loss  (paina  damni).'  " 

Here,  as  in  other  cases,  Calvinism  asserts  a  positive  dam- 
nation of  eternal  pain  for  heathen  infants,  over  against  the 
modified  and  negative  loss  which  Arminianism  conceded. 

The  Deaf  and  Dumb  and  Insane. — But  the  ingenuity  of 
these  terrible  old  logicians  has  not  exhausted  itself,  with  the 
mystery  which  puts  the  immensely  larger  part  of  infants  into 
the  ranks  of  the  reprobate  and  damned.  They  go  to  a  hapless 
part  of  the  race,  whose  condition  even  beyond  that  of  infants 

*  Mastricht :  Theo-.  Pract.  Theol.  Trajecti    ad  Rhen.    1725,   p.  1069.      Walch 
Bibl.  Theol.  Select.  I.  428;  II.  549,  550. 

f  Exerc.  Sup.  Loe.  Comm.  Theolog.     Franck,  1653.     De.  Elec.  grat.  1,  g  24. 
J  Do.  Locus  de  electione.  Dispuat.  II. 


The  Great  Calvinistie  Divines  against  the  Arminians    65 

touches  the  heart  with  the  saddest  pathos.  Cloppenburg* 
further  makes  the  charge  against  the  Remonstrants : 

"They  also  exempt  without  exception,  all  deaf  and  dumb  persons,  and 
the  insane.     (Surdos  atque  Amentes). 

"  For  experience  shows  a  distinction  between  one  class  of  the  deaf 
and  dumb,  who  by  signs  and  pious  works  manifest  {spirant)  an  inward 
devotion,  and  another  class,  in  whom  sin  reveals  itself,  reigning  through 
the  works  of  the  flesh.  *  *  These  latter  we  believe  are  left  dead  in  sins, 
under  just  damnation,  through  the  law  of  nature." 

It  is  well  for  the  reader  to  recall  the  fact  that  when  Clop- 
penburgh  wrote,  the  possibility  of  reaching  those  born  deaf, 
with  the  Word,  was  almost  unknown.  A  few  isolated  attempts 
had  succeeded  in  the  long  ages,  but  their  success  was  regarded 
as  miraculous,  or  treated  as  a  fable,  and  whether  as  miracle  or 
fable,  soon  forgotten.  Jerome  Cardan  (1501 — 1576)  had  as- 
serted the  possibility  of  teaching  the  deaf  and  dumb.  To  Pedro 
Ponce,  a  Benedictine  monk  of  Spain,  belongs  the  honor  of  first 
attempting  to  actualize  the  possibility ;  to  Juan  Paulo  Boret, 
another  monk  of  the  same  order,  belongs  the  honor  of  publishing 
the  first  book  (1620)  on  the  subject.  Cloppenburgh's  argument 
(1592 — 1652)  implies  that  he  knew  nothing  of  this  possibility. 

Of  the  idiotic,  insane,  and  mad,  he  says,  "a  distinction  is  to  be  made. 
There  are  those  whom  an  evil  conscience  and  reprobate  mind,  by  God's 
just  judgment,  drives  to  madness,  like  mad  dogs  (ut  canes  rabiosbs)  ; 
who,  unless  God  heals  them,  cannot  be  counted  with  the  non-reprobate? ' 

MoLINiEUS    AGAINST    THE    ARMINIANS. — PETER    MOLINiEUS 

(Dumoulin)  1568 — 1658,  was  one  of  the  greatest  divines  of  the 
French  Calvinistie  Church,  and  was  deputed  to  attend  the 
Synod  of  Dort.  The  prohibition  of  Louis  XIII.  prevented  his 
attendance,  but  did  not  prevent  his  promulgating  and  defending 
the  decrees  of  the  Synod,  and  obtaining  for  them  the  sanction 
of  the  National  Synods  of  Calvinistie  France.     In  the  theo- 

*  Locus  de  Electiono.  Disputat.  II. 

5 


Review  of  Dr.  Hodge  %  Systematic  Tlieology. 

logical  chair  at  Sedan,  he  was  the  great  opponent  of  Amyraud 
and  the  other  professors  of  Saumur,  who  were  charged  with  a 
kind  of  Semi-Arminianism.  He  has  been  regarded  as  "  one  of 
the  greatest  writers  and  the  first  polemic  of  his  age."  In  his 
Dissection  of  Arminianism,*  he  opens  with  a  defence  of  God's 
dealings  with  man,  thoroughly  characteristic  of  old  Calvinism. 

"  If  any  one  were  to  crush  an  ant  with  his  foot,  no  one  could  charge 
him  with  injustice,  though  the  ant  never  offended  him,  though  he  did 
not  give  life  to  the  ant,  though  the  ant  belonged  to  another,  and  no  res- 
titution could  be  made,  and  though  between  the  ant  and  man  the  in- 
equality is  not  infinite,  but  a  certain  and  finite  proportion." 

In  all  these  aspects,  he  argues,  the  case  is  stronger  for  God, 
"  if  He  should  harden  sinful  men  whom  He  might  save."  "  The 
offspring  of  the  pious  and  faithful  are  born  with  the  infection 
of  original  sin."f  "As  the  eggs  of  the  asp  are  deservedly 
crushed,  and  serpents  just  born  are  deservedly  killed,  though 
they  have  not  yet  poisoned  any  one  with  their  bite,  so  infants 
are  justly  obnoxious  to  penalties."^  Molinseus  answers  the 
Arminian  position  that  Christ  by  His  death  obtained  reconcilia- 
tion for  all,  by  objecting  that  it  would  then  follow  "  that  all 
infants  born  outside  of  the  covenant  are  reconciled,  and  have 
their  sins  forgiven,  and  that  hence  no  greater  blessing  could 
be  conferred  on  them  than  the  merciful  cruelty  of  cutting  their 
throats  in  their  cradles,  (quam  si  quis  eos  dementi  crudelitate 
in  cunis  jugulaverit).'',%  Molinseus'  suggestion  holds  with  equal 
force  against  Dr.  Hodge's  view  that  all  dying  infants  are  saved. 
The  two  together  would  imply  that  any  man  can  make  the 
election  of  an  infant  sure  in  the  dreadful  manner  suggested  in 
the  bloody  age  in  which  Molinseus  lived. 

"  To  him,  whom  Ged  hates  from  the  luomb,  He  does  not  give  sufficient 

*  Anatome  Arminianismi.     Lugduni  Batav.  1621,  4to,  p.  2.  f  Do.,  p.  36. 

%  P.  48.  I  P.  181. 


TJie  Great  Calvinistic  Divines  against  the  Arminians.    67 

and  saving  grave.  Hence  there  are  those  whom  God  rejects  with  a 
spiritual  rejection,  before  they  have  done  anything  of  good  or  evil.  He 
does  not  therefore  give  them  sufficient  means  to  faith  and  salvation,  for 
this  cannot  be  harmonized  with  hatred."  * 

The  same  views  of  infant  reprobation  are  pressed  over  against 
the  Arminians,  by  Molinseusf  in  other  places. 

BURMANN   AGAINST   THE    ARMINIANS. 

Buemanx.J — '•  The  Remonstrants  do  evilly,  who,  though  they  do  not 
dare,  on  account  of  1  Cor.  vii.  14,  to  put  them  in  heaven,  yet  acknowledge 
no  reprobation  of  them,  *  *  but  assign  them  rather  a  middle  state  and 
penalty  of  loss;  as  also  other,  both  of  the  ancients  and  moderns,  grant 
heaven  to  them,  in  the  face  of  1  Cor.  vii.  14,  and  Rom.  v.  14." 

GUERTLER,  AGAINST  THE  ARMINIANS. 

Guertler  (1654-1711)  in  arguing  against  the  Arminians, 
says  : 

"  Death  comes  even  unto  infants ;  for  without  reason,  and  contrary 
to  Pauls  decision,  Episcopius  exempts  from  the  number  of  those  who  are 
to  be  punished,  infants  and  idiots  [infantes  etfatuos)."$ 

That  our  readers  may  clearly  see  what  it  is  that  is  con- 
demned, we  will  quote  the  passage  to  which  Guertler  refers. 

Episcopius:  "The  Scripture  represents  that  misery  (of  death  or 
damnation  and  sin)  as  universal,  so  as  to  involve  the  whole  human  race, 
that  is  all  men  and  every  man,  to  wit,  in  whom  that  misery  can  have 
just  place  as  penalty.  Infants  therefore,  as  such,  as  also  idiots  (fatuos), 
the  insane,  the  mad  or  those  destitute  of  the  use  of  reason  and  free  will 
we  are  unwilling  to  comprehend  in  that  number.  .  .  .  They  are 
liberated  from  that  death  by  special  Divine  grace."  || 

Guertler  has  been  explicit  enough,  but  he  makes  assurance 
doubly  sure,  by  proceeding  in  the  next  paragraph  to  say : 

*  Do.,  2S9.        f  Thesaurus  Sedanensis  Genevas,  1661.     2  Vols.  4to,  I.  197. 
%  Synop.  Theolog.     Gencv.  167S,  I.  256.       £  Institut.  Theolog.  Amstelod.  1694, 
pp.  18S,  139. 

Ulnstitut.Theolog.Lib.IV.     Sect.   V.  ch.   I.       Opera  Amstelod.  1650,  p.  401. 


68  Review  of  Dr.  Hodge's  Systematic  Theology. 

"  By  '  death  '  is  understood,  death,  temporal  and  death  eternal ;  and 
this  latter  is  the  unceasing  {perpetuus)  sense  of  dire  tortures  (dirorum 
cruciatum),  inevitable  to  those  who  see  not  the  face  of  God,  so  that  the 
Scholastics,  following  Lombard,  wrongly  teach  that  infants,  on  account 
of  sin,  pay  the  debt  of  loss  only,  not  of  sense."  The  sentence  of  Lom- 
bard, which  Guertler  cites,  is  as  follows  :  "  Not,  therefore,  for  the  actual 
sins  of  their  own  parents,  nor  even  for  the  actual  sins  of  the  first  parent, 
but  for  original  (sin)  which  is  derived  from  the  parents,  infants  will  be 
damned  ;  hence  they  will  not  endure  the  penalty,  material  fire,  or  that  of 
the  worm  of  conscience,  but  will  be  deprived  forever  of  the  vision  of 
God.'  *  This  mitigation  Guertler  rejects,  and  closes  the  paragraph  fol- 
lowing, with  the  decisive  words  :  "  God  hath  ordained  (Statuit),  that  we 
should  be  born  corrupt,  or  that  we  should  sin,  because  Adam  hath 
sinned,  and  wills  that  we  should  die,  because  we  sin."f 

"    §38.    THE  AEMINIANS  AGAINST  THE  CALVINISTS. 

The  Arminian  defenses  constantly  urge  against  the  Calvin- 
ists  their  doctrine  of  infant  reprobation.  It  is  one,  they  say, 
of  which  Calvinists  make  no  secret,  so  far  as  the  children  of 
the  non-elect,  pagan  or  Christian,  are  concerned,  and  which 
the  candid  allow  involves  that  some  children  even  of  the  elect 
are  lost. 

Episcopius. — "  Those  who  believe  that  absolute  election  and  absolute 
reprobation  pertain  to  infants  dying  in  infancy,  whether  they  be  Gen- 
tiles or  children  of  those  who  are  in  the  covenant — to  them  the  uncer- 
tainty (whether  they  shall  grieve  or  rejoice  over  the  death  of  their 
children)  is  very  mournful,  for  the  fear  of  reprobation  far  outweighs 
the  hope  of  election,  since  the  number  of  the  reprobate  is  far  greater 
than  that  of  the  elect :  hence  it  is  clear  that  an  unutterable  grief  may 
readily  arise  from  such  a  death."J 

Grotius  shows  that  in  certain  aspects  the  Calvinists  de- 
parted as  completely  from  the  "  Catholic  faith,"  in  regard  to 
infants,  as  the  Pelagians  did  in  others.  If  the  Calvinists  did 
not  hold,  with  Augustine,  that  unbaptized  infants   are  lost, 

*  Lombard,  Sentat.  L.  II.    Dort.  33,  1,  E.        f  See  also  Guertler  do.  do.,  p.  202, 
and  the  citations  he  gives  from  the  Remonstrant's  Confessions. 
X  Responsio  ad  LXI V.   Quaest.  3S. 


The  Arminians  against  the  Calvinists.  69 

neither  did  they  hold,  as  Augustine  did  most  tenaciously,  that 
all  baptized  infants  are  certainly  saved.  He  states  the  Cal- 
vinistic  doctrine  thus:  "  That  some  infants,  dying  in  infancy, 
and  who,  as  children  of  believers  and  baptized,  are  delivered 
to  the  torments  of  hell  on  account  of  original  sin."  * 

"  Calvin  says  that  of  those  who  have  rested  on  the  breasts  of  the  same 
Christian  mother  some  are  borne  to  heaven,  others  thrust  down  to  hell, 
without  respect  to  their  having  or  failing  to  have  Baptism :  to  wit,  by 
virtue  of  that  decree,  by  which  God  hath  decreed,  not  by  permitting 
only,  but  also  by  willing,  that  Adam  should  necessarily  fall,  and  that  so 
many  nations,  with  their  infant  children,  should  through  that  fall  be 
brought  to  eternal  death  without  remedy.  When  Calvin  himself  calls 
this  decree  '  fearful '  (horribile),  he  gives  it  too  soft  a  name  (minus  quam 
res  est  dixit)"\ 

Limborch  (d.   1712).— "The    Contra-remonstrants    (the  Calvinists) 
teach  that  original  sin  merits  the  eternal  punishment  of  sense,  or  the 
eternal  torments  of  the  fire  of  hell,  so  that  many  infants  dying  iu  in- 
fancy are  to  be  tortured  forever  in  the  fire  of  hell.     Thus  in  common 
(communiter)  the  Contra- remonstrant  divines  teach  concerning  the  chil- 
dren of  unbelievers  who  die  in  infancy.    As  regards  the  children  of  be- 
lievers they  do  not  openly  set  forth  their  judgment.    Some  say  in  ex- 
press words,  that  the  distinction  of  election  and  reprobation  exists  in 
their  case    also,  and,  therefore,  some  children  of  believers,  dying  in 
infancy,  are  to  be  cast  into  hell.    Such  is  the  view  of  Parieus,  Zan- 
chius,  Perkins,  and  Donteklok.     Arthur  Hildersham,  also    on  Psalm 
I.  Lect.  55,  says :    "  It  is  clear  that  God  hath  declared  His  wrath  against 
the  sins  of  infants  by  pursuing  with  His  hatred  not  their  sins  only,  but 
also  their  persons,  (nontantum  .  .  ipsorum  peccata  sed  et  personas,)  Rom. 
ix.  11,  13,  nor  merely  by  inflicting  on  them  corporeal  penalties,  but  also 
by  casting  them  into  hell.     And  to  put  beyond  all  doubt  that  he    is 
speaking  of  the  children  of  believers,  in  speaking,  on  Rom.  ix.,  of  the 
children  of  believers,  he  says :  '  It  is  a  damnable  error  that  all  who  die 
in  infancy  shall  certainly  obtain  the  heavenly  heritage ;  on  the  con- 
trary, he  (Paul)  decides  that  mimj  infants  are  vessels  of  wrath  and  fire- 
brands of  hell   (titiones  inferni).'     Others,  not  daring   to    confess  this 
openly,  cover  the  hideousness  (foeditatem)  of  their  position  with  ambigu- 
ous words,  by  saying  that  we,  in  accordance  with  God'a  revealed  will, 
expressed  in  this  formula  of  the  divine  covenant,  and  in  accordance 
with  the  judgment  of  charity,  ought  to  regard  as  elect  all  the  children 

*Disquisitio  de  dogmnt.     Pelagian.  Opera,  Londini,  16S9,  IV.  37G. 
f  Rivet.    Apologet.     Discuss.  Opera,  IV.  684. 


70  Review  of  Dr.  Hodge's  Systematic  Theology. 

of  believers,  as  embraced  in  tbe  same  covenant  witb  their  parents. 
But  as  they  hold  that  the  secret  will  of  God  is  often  contrary  to  His  re- 
vealed will,  and  that  we  are  obliged  sometimes  to  believe,  according  to 
the  revealed  will,  what  is  false  according  to  the  secret  will :  and  as 
many  according  to  the  judgment  of  charity  are  to  be  esteemed  elect,  who 
are  in  fact  not  elect,  it  is  evident  that  there  is  here  no  certitude  of  faith, 
and  that  they  have  devised  this,  only  to  disguise  their  opinion,  whose 
hideousness  they  desire,  as  far  as  they  can,  to  conceal."* 

§  39.    THE   WESTMINSTER  ASSEMBLY.    (1643 — 45.) 

But  perhaps  the  Westminster  Assembly,  which  embraced  in 
its  Confession  the  particular  type  of  Calvinism  to  which  Dr. 
Hodge  is  bound,  and  of  which  he  is,  indisputably,  one  of  the 
noblest  representatives — perhaps  this  Assembly  may  have  been 
marked  by  special  mildness — and  mitigating  its  logic  by  its 
gentleness,  may  have  qualified  the  rigor  of  the  older  view? 
Such  a  supposition  could  only  be  made  in  ignorance  and  in 
irony.  The  Calvinism  of  the  Westminster  Assembly  was  in 
no  respect  milder  than  that  of  the  Synod  of  Dort.  Its  pro- 
locutor, Dr.  Twiss,  Dr.  Thomas  Goodwin,  one  of  its  very 
greatest  members,  and  others,  were  of  the  extremest  Supralap- 
sarian  school,  that  school  of  which  distinguished  Calvinists  of 
a  milder  type  have  spoken  so  severely.  Thomas  Case,  one  of 
its  most  esteemed  members,  was  so  zealous  for  religion,  as  he 
understood  it,  that  in  a  sermon  before  the  Court  Martial,  1644, 
he  said:  "  Noble  sirs,  imitate  God,  and  be  merciful  to  none 
that  have  sinned  of  malicious  wickedness,"  meaning  the  Royal- 

ists.f 

Dr.  Philip  Schaff  says  of  the  Westminster  Assembly:  "  The 
Presbyterians  were  opponents  of  all  tolerance,  and  were  as 
urgent  for  a  general  uniformity  as  the  Episcopalians  had  been 
under  Elizabeth  and  Charles  II.     They  regarded  freedom  of 

*  Tbeologia  Chris'iana.     Amsterdam,  1700.     Lib.  III.  Ch.  V.  iii.  p.  187. 
f  Neal's  History  of  the  Puritans,     ii.  301. 


Mitigation  of  the  Calvinistic  Doctrine  of  Infant  Baptism.    71 

conscience  and  tolerance  as  culpable  indifference  and  treason 
toward  revealed  truth."*  The  writings  of  the  Westminster 
divines,  and  of  all  the  earlier  school  which  followed  in  their 
footsteps,  sustain  the  sense  we  have  given  to  the  Westminster 
Confession  in  regard  to  infant  damnation.  These  writings  are 
in  English  and  easy  of  access,  and  we  need  not  therefore 
swell  our  testimonies  with  them.  The  meaning  of  a  Confession 
when  it  is  made,  remains  its  meaning  forever — and  hence  the 
vital  importance  of  the  earliest  writers,  the  authors  of  Con- 
fessions, and  the  original  interpreters,  expounders,  and  defen- 
ders of  them.  It  is  the  meaning  these  writers  put  upon  the 
Calvinistic  Confessions,  not  one  imagined  by  ourselves,  which 
we  have  given  them  ;  and  on  the  express  language  of  the  Con- 
fessions, and  of  these  witnesses,  we  rest  our  case. 

§  40.  ATTEMPTS  AT    MITIGATION  OF   THE  CALVINISTIC   DOCTRINE 

OF   INFANT  DAMNATION. 

Though  Calvinists  have  regarded  the  doctrine  of  infant  dam- 
nation as  involved  in  the  logic  of  the  case,  they  have  not  been 
able  to  repress  the  promptings  of  our  common  humanity,  which 
Christianity  does  not  repress,  but  intensifies.  The  evidence  of 
this  human  feeling  is  also  the  evidence  of  the  fixedness  of  the 
doctrine  of  infant  damnation  in  the  system.  The  attempts  to 
mitigate  its  horrors,  show  that  they  could  not  abandon  the 
doctrine  itself.  The  confession  of  this  feeling  of  a  need  of  mi- 
tigation shows  itself  in  various  ways. 

1.  In  some  by  a  virtual  acknowledgment  of  the  principle  of 
the  Limbus  Infantum.  Fighting  the  name,  and  part  of  the 
definition  given  by  the  Church  of  Rome,  many  of  the  Calvinists 
have  granted,  in  substance,  the  thing. 

*  Hertzog :  Art.  Westminster  Synode,    Vol.  XVIII.  56. 


72  Review  of  Dr.  Hodge's  Systematic  Theology. 

Martyr.* — "  Young  infants  must  be  punished  (in  hell-fire).  But  it 
is  credible  they  shall  be  the  easier  punished." 

Chamier.I — "  Infants  guilty  of  original  sin  only,  in  very  deed  suffer 
the  eternal  fire,  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels.  Although  the 
opinion  of  Augustine  is  not  improbable,  that  their  pains  are  the  mildest." 

Molhst^us.J — "  Here,"  ("  of  the  infants  of  unbelievers  *')  "  neverthe- 
less language  should  he  sober.  We  piously  presume  that  a  good  God 
acts  clemently,  with  those  little  souls,  (animulis),  and  that  their  punish- 
ment is  far  lighter  than  the  punishment  of  those  who  polluted  by  their 
proper,  and  personal  sins,  die  without  the  grace  of  Christ." 

Stapfer§— "  They  will  be  damned:  but  there  are  various  grades  of 
the  sense  of  that  penalty  and  of  damnation,  so  that  the  penalty  of  in- 
fants, and  the  share  of  it  will  be  the  least,  and  therefore  differs  much 
from  that  of  the  devil,  and  of  adults  voluntarily  persevering  in  their  sins ; 
so  that  here  also  God  will  be  found  just  in  His  ways." 

§  41.    INFANT   ANNIHILATION. 

2.  Dr.  Watts  could,  as  a  Calvinist,  find  no  escape  from  the 
doctrine  that  there  are  reprobate  infants,  and  that  they  ofttimes 
die  in  infancy.  He  could  not  as  a  Calvinist  receive  the  doc- 
trine of  a  mitigated  punishment  of  them.  In  pure  desperation, 
in  the  struggle  between  the  necessities  of  his  system,  and  his 
instincts  as  a  human  creature,  he  embraces  the  theory  that  re- 
probate infants,  are  probably  annihilated  at  death  : 

"  The  salvation  of  all  children  .  .  has  no  countenance  from  the  Bible, 
.  .  no  foundation  in  reason.  The  Scripture  brings  down  the  infants  of 
wicked  parents  to  the  grave,  and  leaves  them  there,  and  so  do  I.  The 
Scripture  has  not  provided  any  resurrection  for  them,  neither  can  I 
do  it."  || 

§  42.    MEDIATING   TENDENCY. 

3.  In  the  period  which  has  followed  the  lapse  of  nearly  two 
centuries,  some  of  the  Calvinistic  divines  begin  to  show  a  hesi- 
tation on  the  doctrine,  a  disposition  to  qualify  it.  Especially 
is  this  the  case  with  the  mediating  divines  on  the  Continent 

*  Common  Places,  I.  234.  f  Panstrat.  Cathol.     Contract.  Spanheim,  795. 

%  Thesaurus.  Disputat.  Theolog.  in  Sedan.  Acad.  I.  212.  §  Instit.  Theol.  Polem. 
IV.,  518.        ||  Ruin  and  Recovery  of  Mankind,  Quest.  XVI. 


Lutheranizing   Tendency.  73 

who  were  anxious  for  union  with  the  Lutheran  Church.  But 
in  no  case  do  these  writers  pretend  to  sustain  their  views  by 
citations  from  the  Calvinistic  authorities  or  the  standard  Cal- 
vinistic  divines.  In  this  general  school  we  place  Dr.  Hodge, 
and  it  is  true  of  him  as  of  the  others,  that  he  does  not  attempt 
by  a  solitary  citation  from  a  Calvinistic  Confession,  or  a  stan- 
dard Calvinistic  divine,  to  maintain  his  position  that  all  who 
die  in  infancy  are  certainly  saved. 

Dr.  Hodge's  position,  indeed,  in  1860,  as  given  in  a  quota- 
tion in  the  "  Outlines  of  Theolosv,"*  seemed  to  involve  what 
we  suppose  to  be  the  correct  view  of  the  meaning  of  the  Con- 
fession. In  epitomizing  the  doctrine  of  the  Confession  he  says : 
"  By  the  right  use  of  this  ordinance  the  grace  promised  is  .  . 
conferred  by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  such  (whether  of  age  or  in- 
fants) as  that  grace  belongeth  unto.  That  baptism  does  not  in 
all  cases  secure  the  blessings  of  the  covenant.  .  .  That  their 
blessings  depend  upon  two  things :  (1)  the  right  use  .  .  ;  (2) 
the  secret  purpose  of  God."  In  seeming,  therefore,  now  to 
deny  that  the  purpose  of  God  in  regard  to  dying  infants  is  se- 
cret, he  increases  our  surprise  that  he  does  not  vindicate  or  at 
least  explain  an  apparent  change  of  opinion. 

§  43.    LUTHERANIZING  TENDENCY. 

4.  Some  of  the  Reformed  divines,  divines  of  the  "  greatest 
renown,"  and  "  of  the  first  order,"  as  WlTSlusf  calls  them,  have 
shown  a  strong  leaning  to  views,  in  conflict  with  their  Calvin- 
ism, and  in  various  degrees,  in  approximation  to  the  Lutheran 
doctrine.  They  have  maintained  that  regeneration  and  justifi- 
cation, are  not  only  signified  but  are  imparted  in  Baptism, 
either  to  all  infants,  or  at  least  to  the  elect.  The  more  logical 
Calvinism  has  been  completely  anti-Augustinian  in  regard  to 
the  objective  force  of  Baptism.     This  latter  doctrine  was  so 

*  501,  502.  f  Miscellan.  Sacr.  II.  CIS. 


74  Review  of  Br.  Hodge's  Systematic  Theology. 

thoroughly  inwrought  from  the  beginning  into  the  faith  and 
life  of  the  Church,  that  both  Augustine  and  Pelagius,  with 
whose  extremes  it  stood  in  about  equal  conflict,  were  obliged 
to  acknowledge  it,  to  accept  it  as  an  immovable  fact,  with 
which  their  systems  must,  in  some  way,  be  harmonized.  The 
objective  force  of  Baptism  is  irreconcilable  on  the  one  side  with 
the  absolute  decree  of  Augustine,  which  logically  demands 
that  sacraments  are  meant  for  and  shall  have  validity  only  for 
the  elect ;  it  is  irreconcilable  on  the  other  with  the  Pelagian 
denial  of  the  corruption  of  human  nature,  and  of  an  infant's 
need  of  regeneration. 

Augustine  nevertheless  was  compelled  by  the  fixed  faith  of 
the  Church  to  acknowledge  that  all  baptized  infants  are  justi- 
fied, and  that  consequently  original  sin  is  remitted  to  them  in 
Baptism — and  so  far  the  ancient  Augustinian  school  was  a 
unit.  It  divided,  however,  on  another  point.  Augustine  held 
that  this  pardon  was  revocable — God  could  take  it  back,  and 
in  the  case  of  the  reprobate  infallibly  did  take  it  back. 
Prosper  maintained,  on  the  contrary,  that  the  forgiveness  of 
original  sin  in  Baptism  was  irrevocable,  and  that  if  any  one  af- 
ter Baptism  fell  from  Christ  and  grace,  and  was  lost,  he  was 
condemned  for  his  actual  sins  only :  his  original  sin  remaining, 
still  and  forever,  pardoned. 

Many  of  the  greatest  of  the  Reformed  divines  have  been 
overwhelmed  with  what  they  grant  is  on  this  point — the  objec- 
tive force  of  Baptism — the  faith  of  all  the  fathers  and  of  the 
entire  Christian  Church  through  all  the  ages  before  the  rise  of 
Calvinism.* 

Le  Blanc  maintains  that:  "  Sacraments  not  only  seal  grace 
received,  but  are  also  means  of  receiving  grace,  and  are  signs 
of  a  certain  grace  present,  which  is  conferred  and  communi- 
cated with  them."f 

*  Witsius,  Miscellan.  II.  640.  f  Quoted  by  Witsius.  Miscell.  Sac.  II.  652. 


Reformed  Liturgies.  75 

Jurieu,  (1C37-1713)  is  confessedly  one  of  the  greatest 
names  in  the  history  of  Calvinism  and  of  the  Christian  Church. 
His  views  are  thus  epitomized  by  Witsius.*  Jurieu  maintains 
that :  "  God  ordinarily  confers  His  grace  at  the  time  in  -which 
He  represents  it:  the  elect  infants  of  those  in  covenant  are, 
previous  to  their  Baptism,  children  of  wrath ;  they  are  not 
loved  by  God  with  the  love  of  complacency  till  they  are  bap- 
tized and  washed  from  those  stains,  with  which  we  are  all  born  ; 
by  Baptism  the  liability  arising  from  original  sin  is  so  removed, 
that  none  who  are  baptized  are  condemned  on  account  of  origi- 
nal sin  :  that  infants  legitimately  baptized  and  dying  in  infancy 
are  certainly  saved,  and  that  this  baptism  is  an  indubitable 
proof  of  their  election :  that  baptism  is  as  necessary  to  salva- 
tion as  food  to  life,  or  medicine  to  healing:  that  God  can  and 
does  save  some  infants  without  baptism — but  this  is  done  in  an 
extraordinary  way." 

To  the  names  of  the  defenders  of  these  views  among  the  Re- 
formed are  to  be  added  the  names  of  Pareus,  Baron,  Forbes, 
Davenant,  (delegate  from  the  King  of  England,  at  Dort,  af- 
terwards Bishop)  and  Ward,  Professor  at  Cambridge,  (also  a 
delegate  at  Dort),  All  of  these  divines  were  of  the  Lutheran  - 
izing  type  within  the  Reformed  Churches,  and  Witsius  shows 
at  large  that  their  views  are  wholly  irreconcilable  with  Calvin- 
ism, t 

§  44.  Reformed  Liturgies. 
5.  Such,  however,  has  been  the  force  of  testimony  on  the 
point  that  regeneration  is  ordinarily  conferred  at  the  time  of 
Baptism,  that  this  fact  has  been  recognized  not  only,  as  we 
have  seen,  by  great  divines,  but  in  defiance  of  its  inconsis- 
tency with  the  system,  in  more  than  one  of  the  Reformed  Li- 
turgies and  other  official  documents. 

*  Miscell.  Sacr.  II.  654.  |  Witsius,  Miscell.  II.  618. 


76  Review  of  Dr.  Hodge's  Systematic  Theology. 

In  Leo  Juda's  and  Zwingli's  Form  of  1523,  the  Priest  after 
dipping  the  child  in  the  water,  says  :  "  God  .  .  who  hath  be- 
gotten thee  again  from  on  high,  and  hath  forgiven  thee  all  thy 
sins,  anoint  thee,  &c."* 

In  the  Form  for  the  ministration  of  Baptism  in  the  Church 
of  England,  after  the  Baptism  the  Priest  says  :  "  Seeing  .  . 
that  this  child  is  regenerate  .  -  we  yield  Thee  hearty  thanks 
that  it  hath  pleased  Thee  to  regenerate  this  infant  with  Thy 
Holy  Spirit."  Burnet  argues  that  this  part  of  the  Book  of 
Common  Prayer  is  irreconcilable  with  Calvinism,  and  he  is 
right. 

The  Church  of  England,  in  her  form  of  Baptism,  as  dis- 
tinctly affirms  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration,  as  does 
any  part  of  Christendom.  The  originals  of  her  form  of  Bap- 
tism, whether  she  draws  them  from  the  Lutheran  Church,  or 
from  the  old  Church  of  the  West,  mean  baptismal  regeneration 
beyond  dispute,  and  she  took  the  forms  because  they  have  this 
meaning.  . 

No  part  of  what  has  been  claimed  as  belonging  to  the  Re- 
formed Church,  as  early  and  as  completely  as  she,  has  delivered 
itself  from  the  whole  disposition  to  consign  infants  to  damna- 
tion, though  within  the  Church  the  party  of  high  Calvinists, 
more  faithful  to  Calvinism  than  to  the  general  spirit  of  the 
Church  of  England,  teach,  in  accordance  with  their  system 
the  doctrine  of  infant  damnation.  Ussher,  for  example,  does 
it  in  the  strongest  terms. 

If  Calvinism  be  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England,  tha 
conflict  is  not  solely  between  the  Articles  and  the  Common 
Prayer,  but  between  the  Articles  themselves.  This  conflict  is 
more  marked  in  the  Latin  original  of  the  Articles  than  in  the 
English  version.  In  the  Second  Article  of  the  Thirty-nine,  the 
Church  of  England  literally  transfers  the  very  words  of  the 

*  Daniel's  Codex  Liturgio.  III.,  111. 


Reformed  Liturgies.  77 

Augsburg  Confession  (Art.  III.)  that  "  Christ  died,  not  only 
for  original  sin,  but  for  all  the  actual  sins  of  men."  That 
seems  to  teach  universal  atonement.  She  teaches  (in  Art. 
XVI.)  that  "after  we  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost  we  may 
depart  from  grace  given."  That  is  hardly  final  perseverance. 
She  says  in  Art.  XXV.  transferring  verbatim  part  of  Aug. 
Conf.,  Art.  XIII.,  "  that  sacraments  are  efficacious  signs  of 
grace,  through  wliicli  God  operates  on  us,"  and  "quickens,"  that 
is,  excites  (Lat.  excitat)  "  faith,  as  well  as  confirms  it."  That  is 
not  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  which  separates  the  efficacy  from 
the  signs,  and  denies  that  sacraments  originate  gracious  condi- 
tions. 

She  declares  (Art.  XXVII.)  "  that  by  Baptism  as  by  an  in- 
strument, they  that  receive  Baptism  rightly,  are  grafted  (in- 
serted :  Lat.  inseruntur)  into  the  Church."  That  seems  to  con- 
cede the  objective  force  of  the  sacrament.  She  teaches  (in 
Art.  XXXI.)  "  that  the  offering  of  Christ  once  made,  is  that 
perfect  redemption,  propitiation,  and  satisfaction  for  all  the 
sins,  both  original  and  actual,  of  the  whole  world" — and  this 
seems  to  be  unlimited  atonement  again.  These  and  other  pas- 
sages are,  in  their  natural  and  obvious  sense,  irreconcilable 
with  Calvinism,  and  have  taxed  the  ingenuity  of  the  Calvinistic 
expositors  to  the  utmost. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England  has  been  through- 
out that  "  it  is  certain  by  God's  Word  that  children,  being 
baptized,  (if  they  depart  out  of  this  life  in  their  infancy)  are 
certainly  saved."* 

To  this  was  added  in  the  Articles  of  1586,  that  children, 
dying  unbaptized,  are  not  saved  :  "  Infants  and  children  dying 
in  their  infancy  shall  undoubtedly  be  saved  thereby,  or  else 
not."^     The  negation  is  omitted  in  all  the  later' statements, — 

*  Articles  of  the  Convocation,  153G.     Homily  on  Salvation,  1547.     Preface  to  Con- 
firmation, Book  1 5 4 'J ,  and  to  Books  of  1552,  and  the  Book  of  Elizabeth, 
f  Quoted  from  Wilkins'  Concilia,  III.;S18,  in  Bulley'3  Tabular  View,  (1S42)  254. 


78  Review  of  Dr.  Hodge's   Systematic  Theology. 

the  official  statement  of  the  Church  of  England  is,  that  baptized 
infants  are  certainly  saved.  She  nowhere,  in  any  document  in 
present  force,  asserts  in  terms  that  unbaptized  infants  are  cer- 
tainly lost.  All  her  affirmations  as  to  the  certainty  of  the 
salvation  of  all  baptized  infants  have  been  the  objects  of  steady 
opposition  on  the  part  of  decided  Calvinists. 

In  the  Rubric  of  1662,  to  the  form  of  Public  Baptism,  were 
added  the  words:  "It  is  certain  by  God's  Word  that  children 
which  are  baptized,  dying  before  they  commit  actual  sin,  are 
undoubtedly  saved."  The  Rubric  stands  to  this  day.  Baxter, 
one  of  the  most  moderate  of  Calvinists,  declares  that  if  this 
Rubric  were  the  only  thing  in  the  way,  it  would  be  sufficient  to 
prevent  him  and  his  associates  from  conforming  to  the  Church, 
whatever  they  might  suffer  for  their  refusal.  He  pronounces  it 
a  new  Article  of  Faith;  a  dangerous  addition  to  God's  Word; 
a  doctrine  unheard  of  before  the  last  change  of  the  Liturgy. 
Think  of  it !  The  Calvinists  of  England,  represented  by  one  of 
the  most  moderate  of  their  number,  declaring  it  a  sufficient 
reason  for  refusing  to  conform,  that  the  Church  of  England 
does  not  teach  that  some  baptized  infants,  dying  in  infancy, 
are  damned.* 

The  old  Liturgy  of  the  Reformed  Church  of  France 
has  also  been  claimed  as  supporting  their  views,  by  the  Re- 
formed divines,  who  maintain  that  regeneration  is  ordinarily 
conferred  on  infants  in  the  moment  of  Baptism — not  before. f 

§  45.   CONCLUSION. 
We  have  endeavored  frankly  to  meet  what  we  have   consi- 
dered a  virtual  challenge  to  make  good  our  position.     We  now 
make,  not  a  challenge,  but  a  request.     We  request  any  and  all 

*  Baxter:  English  Non-conformity,  C.  LX.       Quoted  in  Bingham:    Apology  of 
the  French  Church,  L.  iii.  C,  18. 
f  Witsius.  Miscell.  Exercertat.  XIX.  Vol.  II.  640. 


Conclusion.  79 

defenders  of  Calvinism  to  produce  a  solitary  Calvinistic  stan- 
dard or  divine,  from  the  First  Helvetic  Confession  to  the  West- 
minster Confession,  or  from  Calvin  to  Twiss,  the  Prolocutor  of 
the  Westminster  Assembly,  in  which,  or  by  whom,  it  is  asserted 
or  implied  that  all  who  die  in  infancy  are  certainly  saved. 

The  discussion  into  which  we  have  here  entered  was  not  one 
of  our  own  seeking.     Calvinism  itself  has  loved  to  raise  the 
question  as  to  this  position  of  its  own  view,  and  the  old  church- 
ly  doctrine  of  Baptismal  Regeneration  to  the  doctrine  of  Infant 
Salvation.     It  was  a  charge  made  by  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge,*  now 
of  Alleghany  Seminary,  against  the  Lutheran  views,  which  led 
us  to  the  argument  finally  embodied  in  our   Conservative  Re- 
formation— the  argument  designed  to  show  that  the  doctrine  of 
Baptism,  as  the  ordinary  channel  of  Regeneration,  places  in- 
fant salvation  on  the  securest  ground.     In  connection  with  this 
argument  occur  our  words  which  Dr.  Charles  Hodge  thinks 
are  not  sustained  by  the  Confessions  and  history  of  Calvinism. 
If  the  historical  argument  we  offer  in  vindication  of  our  in- 
terpretation does  no  more  than  satisfy  the  revered  author  of 
the  Systematic  Theology,  that  our  interpretation  was  not  wan- 
tonly or  hastily  assumed,  we  shall  feel  that  we  have  not  written 
in  vain.     The  facts  we  have  drawn  together,  we  present  purely 
in  the  interests  of  truth,  with  no  personal  animosity  to  Calvin- 
ism, still  less  to  its  representatives.     We  know  how  many  noble 
men,  and  noble  works  have  been  associated  in  the  past  and  are 
associated  in  the  present  with  Calvinism.     Many  of  the  dearest, 
holiest  and  most  treasured  ties  of  our  life  are  those  which  unite 
us  to  members  and  ministers  within  its  various  communions. 
For  its  services  and  sacrifices  in  behalf  of  our  common  Chris- 
tianity we  love  and  revere  it,  and  this  love  and  reverence  is  not 
the  mystery  of  this  Review,  but  very  largely  the  occasion  of  it. 

*  Outlines  of  Theology,  1S60.     P.  502. 


r 


CHRONOLOGICAL    INDEX 


TO   THE 


CITATIONS. 


(THE   REFERENCES  ARE  TO  THE   PARAGRAPHS.) 


354—430.     Augustine,  §  31,  38,  43. 

Pelagius,  §  29,  31,  43. 
403—465.    Prosper,  §  34,  43 
1100—1164.  Lombard,  §37. 

—1542.  Pighius,  J  81. 
1482—1543.  Leo  Juda,  §  44. 
1483—1546.  Luther,  \  3. 
1487—1537.  Zwingli,  §  44. 
1497—1560.  Melancthon  §3. 
1497—1563.  Musculus,  §  6,  26,  26. 
1500—1562.  Martyr,  g  6,  8,  9,  19,  30,  40. 
1504—1575.  Bullinger,  g  24. 

1509—1564.  Calvin,  g  6,  8,  11,  12,  14,  19,  25,  27,  28,  31,  32,  33,  38. 
1510—1580.  Tremellius,  §  28 
1515—1563.  Castalio,  g  33. 
1516—1590.  Zanchius,  §  11,  16,  22,  27,  38. 
1519—1605.  Beza,  §16,28. 

1523.  Leo  Judas  and  Zwingli's  Form  §  44. 
1528—1590.  Andrew,  \  16. 

1530.  Augsburg-  Confession,  \\  43,  45. 
1530—1532.  First  or  Former  Helvetic  Confession,  §  19,  45. 
1534—1583.  Ursinus,  §  6,  30. 
1536—1626.  Wollebius,  §21. 
1540—1617.  GRYNiEUS,  I  27. 
1545—1602   Junius,  §  33. 
1548—1622.  Pareus'  §  9,  13,  38. 

1549.  Zurich  Consensus,  g  20,  22. 
1549— 1560.  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  §  44. 
1552-1571.  Thirty-nine  Articles,  §  44. 
1556 — 1626.  Lubbert,  §  25,  34. 

81 


82  CHRONOLOGICAL   INDEX. 

1558—1602.  Perkins,  W.,  §38. 

1559.  Confession  of  Prance,  §  24. 

1560.  Confession  of  Scotland,  \  24. 
1560—1609.  Arminius,  g  33. 

1561—1610.  Polanus  A.,  §  21. 

1562.  La  Form  des  Prieres,  \  44. 

1627.  Bodius,  E.,  §  9,  20. 
1563  -1641.  Gomarus,  § 1,  15,  25. 
1563—1631.  Hildersham,  §38. 

1566.  Latter  Confession  of  Helvetia,  §  18,  24 

1566.  Confession  of  Belgia.  §  24. 

Liturgy  of  Church  of  Holland,  §  18 
1568—1658.  Molin^us  (Du  Moulin),  §8,  18,  37,  40. 
1570—1621.  Chamierus,  §  6,  9,  31,  40. 
1573—1639.  Walrus  A.,  §25. 
1573  -1651.  Eivetus,  §  19 

1575.  Heidelberg  Catechism,  §  20,  24. 
1575—1646.  Twiss,  §8,  39,  45. 
1576—1633.  Ames  W.,  §  19. 
1576—1641.  Davenant  John,  Bp  of  Salisbury,  §43. 

Ward,  §  43. 
1577—1649.    Vossius,  §  30. 
1578—1627.  Bodius  R.,  §  9.  20. 
1580—1648    Becman  Chr.  (Masson),  §  9,  16. 
1580—1636.  Tirinus,  §31 
1580—1656.  Ussher,  §  44. 
1582—1637   Gerhard,  §  47. 

Bucan,  §  16,  22,  23 
1583—1643.  Episcopius,  §  37,  38. 
1^83—1645.  Grotius,  §  35.  38. 
1584—1652   Wendelinus.  §  6. 

1586.  Colloquy  at  Montbeliard,  §  16. 
1588  -1638.  Alsted,  §  6. 
1589—1676.  Voetius,  §18. 
1590-1658.  Sibel  C,  §9. 
1591—1664.  Dickson  D.,  §  24. 
1592—1652.  Cloppenburgh,  §  37. 
1593—        Forbesius  a  Corse,  §  43 
Baron,  §  43. 

1599  1675.  Maresius  §  81. 
1600—1679.  Goodwin  Thos.,  §39. 

1600  -  1649.  Spanheim,  Sr.,  §  8. 
1603—1669.  Cocceius,  §  8,  14. 

1611.  Contra-Remonstrant  Response,  §  33. 


CHRONOLOGICAL   INDKX.  83 

1614—1675.  Le  Blanc,  §  10,  43. 
1615—1691.  Baxter,  §44. 
1618—1619.  Dort  Synod  of,  §  4,  17,  24,  34. 
"  Bremen  Theologians  at,  §  25. 

"  Swiss  Theologians  at,  \  34. 

"  Belgic  Professors  at,  §  25. 

Lubbert  at,  §  25. 
Gomar  at,  §  25. 
"  Theologians  of  Great  Britain  \  34. 

Deputies  of  South  Holland,  \  34. 
"  Drenthe  Theologians  from,  §  34. 

Canons  of,  \  34. 
1621.  Confession  of  the  Remonstrants,  §36. 
1622—1665.  Clauburg,  g  28. 

1630.  Apology  of  the  Remonstrants,  §  36. 
1633—1712   Limborch,  §  38. 
1633-1698.  Heidegger,  §5,  7,  21. 

1636  -  1708.  Witsius,  §5,  9, 11,  16,  18,  20,  22.  27,  28,  43,  44. 
1637-1713.  Jurieu,  § 10,  43. 
1642    1677.  Momma,  §  16. 
1642—1722.  Leydecker,  \  16. 
1642—1715.  Burnet,  § 44. 

1643 — 45-48.  "Westminster  Assembly,  Confession,  Catechisms, 
\  6,  7,  8,  10,  11,  16,  23,  29,  29,  29,  29,  30,  30,  30,  39. 
1644.  Case,  §  39. 
1652—1705.  Trigland,  §  36 
-  1654—1711.  Gurtler,  §13,  16,  37. 
1655—1731.  Marckius,  §  25. 
1668—1723.  Bingham,  g  44. 
1671—1719.  Burmann,  §28,  37. 
1674—1748.  Watts  Isaac.  §41. 
1676—1732.  Boston,  §  29. 
1683—1729.  Lampe,  §  31 
1698—1765.  Gerdes,  §  27. 

Van  Hoeke,  §  24. 
1708—1775.  Stapfer,  §  32,  40. 
1855.  Shaw,  §  29. 

1860.  Hodge  A.  A.  (Outlines),  §42,  45. 

1861.  Heppe,  §21. 

1864.  Cunningham,  §  29. 
1864.  Schaff  Philip,  §  39. 
1871.  Krauth,  §  3. 
1872    Lecky,  §  34. 
1872—1873.  Hodge  Chas.,  §  1,  2.  3,  4,  10,  31,  34  37,  42,  45. 


82  CHRONOLOGICAL   INDEX. 

1558— 1602.  Perkins,  W  ,  §38. 

1559.  Confession  of  Prance,  §  24. 

1560.  Confession  of  Scotland,  §  24. 
1560—1609.  Arminius,  §  33. 

1561—1610.  Polanus  A.,  §21. 

1562.  La  Form  des  Prieres,  \  44. 

1627.  Bodius,  P.,  § 9,  20. 
1563-1641.  Gomarus,  §  1,  15,  25. 
1563—1631.  Hildersham,  §  38. 

1566.  Latter  Confession  of  Helvetia,  §  18,  24 

1566.  Confession  of  Belgia,  §24. 

Liturgy  of  Church  of  Holland,  §  18 
1568—1658.  Molin^us  (Du  Moulin),  §8,  IS,  37,  40. 
1570—1621.  Chamierus,  §  6,  9,  31,  40. 
1573—1639.  Walrus  A.,  §25. 
1573  -1651.  Eivetus,  §  19 

1575.  Heidelberg-  Catechism,  §  20,  24. 
1575—1646.  Twiss,  §8,  39,  45. 
1576—1633.  Ames  W.,  §  19. 
1576—1641.  Davenant  John,  Bp  of  Salisbury,  §43. 

Ward,  §  43. 
1577—1649.    Vossius,  §30. 
1578—1627.  Bodius  P.,  §  9.  20. 
1580—1648    Becman  Chr.  (Masson),  §  9,  16. 
1580—1636.  Tirinus,  §31 
1580—1656.  Ussher,  §  44. 
1582—1637   Gerhard,  §47. 

Bucan,  §  16,  22,  23 
1583—1643.  Episcopius,  §  37,  38. 
1^83—1645.  Grotius,  §  35.  38. 
1584—1652.  Wendelinus.  §  6. 

1586.  Colloquy  at  Montbeliard,  §  16. 
1588-1638.  Alsted,  §6. 
1589—1676.  Voetius,  §18. 
1590-1658.  Sibel  C,  §9 
1591_1664.  Dickson  D.,  §  24. 
1592—1652.  Cloppenburgh,  §  37. 
1593 —         Forbesius  a  Corse,  §  43 
Baron,  §  43. 

1599  1675.  Maresius  §  81. 
1600—1679.  Goodwin  Thos.,  §  39. 

1600  -  1649.  Spanheim,  Sr.,  §  8. 
1603—1669.  Cocceius,  §  8,  14. 

1611.  Contra-Remonstrant  Response,  §  33. 


chronological  indkx.  83 

1614—1675.  Le  Blanc,  § 10,  43. 
1615—1691.  Baxter,  § 44. 
1618—1619.  Dort  Synod  of,  §  4,  17,  24,  34. 
"  Bremen  Theologians  at,  \  25. 

"  Swiss  Theologians  at,  \  34. 

"  Belgic  Professors  at,  §  25. 

Lubbert  at,  § 25. 
Gomar  at,  §  25. 
"  Theologians  of  Great  Britain  \  34. 

Deputies  of  South  Holland,  \  34. 
"  Drenthe  Theologians  from,  §  34. 

Canons  of,  §  34. 
1621.  Confession  of  the  Remonstrants,  2  36. 
1622—1665.  Clauburg,  \  28. 

1630.  Apology  of  the  Remonstrants,  §  36. 
1633—1712   Limborch,  §  38. 
1633-1698.  Heidegger,  §5,  7,  21. 

1636  -  1708.  Witsius,  §5,  9, 11,  16,  18,  20,  22.  27,  28,  43,  44. 
1637-1713.  Jurieu,  § 10,  43. 
1642    1677.  Momma,  §  16. 
1642—1722.  Leydecker,  \  16. 
1642—1715.  Burnet,  §  44. 

1643 — 45-4S.  "Westminster  Assembly,  Confession,  Catechisms, 
I  6,  7,  8,  10.  11,  16,  23,  29,  29,  29,  29,  30,  30,  30,  39. 
1644.  Case,  §39. 
1652—1705.  Trigland,  §  36 
■  1654—1711.  Gurtler,  |13,  16,  37. 
1655—1731.  Marckius,  §  25. 
1668—1723.  Bingham,  \  44. 
1671—1719.  Burmann,  §  28,  37. 
1674—1748.  Watts  Isaac.  HI. 
1676—1732.  Boston,  §  29. 
1683—1729.  Lampe,  §  31 
1698—1765.  Gerdes,  §27. 

Van  Hoeke,  §  24. 
1708—1775.  Stapfer,  §  32,  40. 
1355.  Shaw,  g  29. 

1860.  Hodge  A.  A.  (Outlines),  §42,  40. 

1861.  Heppe,  §21. 

1864.  Cunningham,  §  29. 
1864.  Schaff  Philip,  §  39. 
1871.  Krauth,  §3. 
1872    Lecky,  §  34. 
1872—1873.  Hodge  Chas.,  §  1,  2,  3,  4,  10,  31,  34  37,  42,  45. 


